Skip to content
Name: People v. Delgadillo
Case #: E034767
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 09/30/2005

An enhancement under Penal Code section 12022(c) was supported by substantial evidence where the evidence showed that the defendant had firearms at the same residence where he kept the cash proceeds of his methamphetamine manufacturing operation. The defendant was convicted by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and other charges, and the jury further found that the defendant was armed with a firearm within the meaning of section 12022(c). Relying on People v. Bland (1995) 10 Cal.4th 991, the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s contention that the enhancement was unsupported by substantial evidence because there was no proof that he had ever been armed at the location where the methamphetamine was manufactured. Like the crime of drug possession at issue in Bland, manufacturing methamphetamine is a continuing offense that extends through time and is not limited to a discrete event. Because the firearms were in the defendant’s bedroom along with a significant amount of money, and in close proximity to cars in which the defendant and his colleagues stored lab equipment and raw material for manufacturing, the firearms were available for defendant to use at any time while he was engaged in manufacturing methamphetamine, and thus the enhancement was supported by substantial evidence.