People v. Byers
Annotate this Case
After defendant petitioned for resentencing under Proposition 36 of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, on his conviction of possession of a firearm with a prior, the trial court found that defendant was ineligible for resentencing due to weight enhancements that had been found true. On remand, the trial court found that defendant was ineligible for resentencing as to count 20 because defendant was armed with a firearm during the commission of that offense. The trial court reasoned that possessing a firearm is a continuing offense and, during the course of defendant's possession, he had the firearms available for use at different points in time.
The Court of Appeal reversed and held that there was insufficient evidence that defendant was armed with a firearm during the offense of possessing the firearm. In this case, defendant was miles away from the firearms when they were found and, moreover, there was no evidence connecting him to those firearms other than that they were in a house where he had been seen earlier in the day and where his car was parked and documents bearing his name were found.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.