Filed 4/28/17 P. v. Matthews CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JAMALL DEJUAN
MATTHEWS,
Defendant and Appellant.
B275398
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA064958)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Joel L. Lofton, Judge. Affirmed in part;
reversed in part.
Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler,
Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant
Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Nicholas J. Webster,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2
Defendant Jamall Dejuan Matthews suffered multiple
convictions, only one of which is challenged on appeal. Defendant
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
conviction for false compartment activity, relating to a space in
his vehicle where he stored controlled substances and a firearm.
Following People v. Arias (2008) 45 Cal.4th 169 (Arias), we find
no substantial evidence supported the conviction for false
compartment activity and reverse that conviction. In all other
respects, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Deputy sheriffs stopped defendant’s vehicle on December 4,
2014, and December 16, 2014. Both times, defendant was the
only occupant in the vehicle.
After the first stop, Deputy Sheriff Arnold Camacho noticed
that a piece on the driver’s door “was loose and appeared to be
modified slightly or just loose and out of place.” Inside, he found
crack cocaine, a loaded firearm, and 100 pills. A torn plastic bag
was found in the center console area and $535 was recovered
from defendant. The cocaine contained about 500 doses.
Defendant was arrested and released on bail.
On December 16, 2014, defendant was stopped again and
Deputy Camacho found a plastic baggie containing 14 and onehalf
pills in the “driver’s-side door panel.” The deputy sheriff
“could see it [(the door panel)] was loose again from the bottom of
the door.” Once pulled, the plastic baggie containing the pills fell
to the ground. The pills later were determined to be Vicodin, a
prescription medication often sold illegally.
For events occurring December 4, 2014, defendant was
convicted of two counts of sale/transportation of a controlled
substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), both with a
3
firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022,
subdivision (c). Jurors further convicted defendant of one count
of false compartment activity (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366.8,
subd. (a)) and possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code,
§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). For the events on December 16, jurors
found defendant guilty of one count of transporting a controlled
substance for sale and further found that defendant was on bail
within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.1. The court
found that defendant suffered a prior strike conviction.
The court sentenced defendant to 15 years for count 1
(transportation of a controlled substance with a firearm
enhancement).
The court found that Penal Code section 654 did not apply
to the remaining convictions arising out of conduct on
December 4 because “all the committed crimes are independent of
each other.” The court imposed concurrent sentences on those
counts. The court imposed a consecutive four-year, eight-month
sentence for the transportation for sale occurring on
December 16.
DISCUSSION
As we shall explain, defendant persuasively argues that no
substantial evidence supported the conviction for false
compartment activity. “ ‘In reviewing a criminal conviction
challenged as lacking evidentiary support, “ ‘the court must
review the whole record in the light most favorable to the
judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial
evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of
solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.]”
[Citation.]’ [Citations.] ‘An appellate court must accept logical
4
inferences that the jury might have drawn from the evidence
even if the court would have concluded otherwise.’ ” (People v.
Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 419.)
Health and Safety Code section 11366.8, subdivision (a)
provides: “Every person who possesses, uses, or controls a false
compartment with the intent to store, conceal, smuggle, or
transport a controlled substance within the false compartment
shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a term of
imprisonment not to exceed one year or pursuant to subdivision
(h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code.” Included in the definition
of false compartment is “[o]riginal factory equipment of a vehicle
that his modified, altered, or changed.” (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11366.8, subd. (d)(2).)
Jurors were instructed that “[t]he defendant is charged in
Count 3 with using a false compartment with the intent to
conceal a controlled substance in a vehicle in violation of Health
and Safety Code section 11366.8. [¶] To prove that the
defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: [¶]
The defendant used a false compartment with the intent to
conceal a controlled substance in the false compartment in a
vehicle. [¶] A false compartment is any box, container, space, or
enclosure intended or designed to conceal any controlled
substance within or attached to a vehicle. A false compartment
may be original factory equipment of a vehicle that is modified.”
In Arias, supra, 45 Cal.4th at page 181, our high court held
that a “ ‘false compartment’ ” must be “something more than the
existing compartments or original factory equipment in a
vehicle.” Stated otherwise, false compartments cannot be
“factory-created compartments or original factory equipment.”
(Id. at p. 182.) The high court noted that the “legislative history
5
reveals the legislative intent to punish the individual who
manufactures false compartments or uses false compartments
that are fabricated by someone other than the manufacturer of
the original vehicle equipment.” (Id. at p. 183.)
In Arias, the following evidence was held insufficient to
support a conviction for use of a false compartment: An officer
saw drugs “stuffed between the steering column and adjacent
wiring behind part of the dashboard and [the officer] easily
removed that ‘loose’ dashboard panel because it clipped in and
out to facilitate access to the electrical circuitry in that area.”
(Arias, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 183.) The high court emphasized
that the “prosecutor never asked the officer whether he tried to
determine whether this space, or any other part of the Lexus, was
standard in that model or whether it had been modified, altered,
or changed in any way in order to prevent the discovery of
controlled substances.” (Ibid.) Because there was no evidence of
“an aftermarket modification of, or alteration to, the original
factory equipment of the vehicle,” the high court reversed the
defendant’s conviction. (Id. at p. 184.)
There is no meaningful distinction between this case and
Arias. Just as in Arias, there was no evidence of “an aftermarket
modification of, or alteration to, the original factory equipment of
the vehicle.” (Arias, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 184.) Deputy
Camacho testified that the compartment may have resulted from
a “loose” piece in the door panel. While Deputy Camacho stated
that the door panel could have been “modified slightly” he never
testified that it was modified. Instead, according to him it may
have simply been “loose and out of place.” Pictures shown to
jurors indicate that the contraband was placed under the window
control panel, but fail to elucidate whether the space had been
6
modified, altered, or changed in any way. No other evidence
showed that the door compartment was modified from the
original factory equipment. Although respondent points out that
“[t]he intent to modify original factory equipment to create a false
compartment is part of the crime’s proscribed conduct,”
respondent cites no evidence showing that defendant modified
the original factory equipment. Because the evidence did not
support the conclusion that defendant fabricated, modified or
altered a compartment, defendant’s conviction for false
compartment activity must be reversed.1 (Arias, supra, 45
Cal.4th at p. 184.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment of conviction for false compartment activity
is reversed. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. The
case is remanded for resentencing.
FLIER, J.
WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW, P. J.
GRIMES, J.

1 Because we conclude that no substantial evidence
supported the false compartment conviction we need not consider
defendant’s argument that under Penal Code section 654 his
conviction for false compartment activity must be stayed.