"All conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the judgment." (People v. Guzman (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1098, citing People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 793.) Thus, to overturn a conviction, "it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it." (People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755; People v. Garcia (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1508.)
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment, we accept as true any facts found by the trial court and supported by substantial evidence, but we exercise independent judgment in evaluating the constitutionality of the warrantless search or seizure, based on those facts. (People v. Guzman (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1096.) "We will uphold the magistrate's ruling if it 'is correct on any theory of the law applicable to the case, even if the ruling was made for an incorrect reason.' "
As required on appeal, we consider that evidence in the light most favorable to the indictment, drawing all legitimate inferences in favor of it. (See, e.g., Stark v. Superior Court (2011) 52 Cal.4th 368, 406-407, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 611, 257 P.3d 41 ( Stark ); People v. Guzman (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1096, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 66.) A. CCW Licenses in Santa Clara County The Penal Code authorizes, but does not require, county sheriffs to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons to applicants who are of good moral character, have good cause for a license, reside or work in the county, and have completed a specified course of training.
While the jury eventually came to a true finding on the weapon enhancement, defendant correctly notes that every verdict "rises or falls on its own." (People v. Guzman (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1095, fn. 3.) He finds the jury's questions before the robbery verdict further support the inference that it had trouble determining whether the knife was displayed menacingly.
(People v. Manson (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 102, 167; People v. Guzman (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1096); it does not "substitute its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the grand jury, and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the indictment" (Stark, supra, 52 Cal.4th 368 at pp. 406-407).
The jury nonetheless presumably found Johnson to be a credible witness, and it is not within our province to reassess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. (People v. Guzman (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1098.) " ' " 'Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the . . . jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.
We acknowledge that the trial court found credible Von Helms's testimony that with Jane Doe's notes she would have changed Arevalos's defense from implied consent to a denial any touching occurred, and it is not our province to reassess witness credibility. (People v. Guzman (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1098.) "We review a cold record and, unlike a trial court, have no opportunity to observe the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses."
We will uphold the magistrate's ruling if it 'is correct on any theory of the law applicable to the case, even if the ruling was made for an incorrect reason.' " (People v. Guzman (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1096.) As defendant points out, "No right is held more sacred . . . than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of the law."
The verdict on each count must stand or fall on its own merits. (People v. Guzman (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1095, fn. 3.) "When a jury renders inconsistent verdicts, 'it is unclear whose ox has been gored.' (United States v. Powell [(1984) 469 U.S. 57,] 65.)