People v. Lizotte CA6

── People v. Lizotte CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/12/26 P. v. Lizotte CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H052521 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2402301) v. RAYMOND LIZOTTE, Defendant and Appellant. In 2024, a jury convicted defendant Raymond Lizotte of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of ammunition by a felon. Lizotte also admitted to having two strike prior offenses. The trial court sentenced Lizotte to 32 months in prison. On appeal, Lizotte claims that apart from an out-of-court statement connecting him to the crime, there was no slight evidence to support a reasonable inference that a crime occurred as required by the corpus delicti requirement. He further contends that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate he physically or constructively possessed a gun at the time of the offense. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.  I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Charges, Trial, and Sentence On June 13, 2024, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office filed a first amended information charging Lizotte with possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code1, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 1), and possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The complaint additionally alleged that as to count 1, Lizotte was armed with a firearm within the meaning of section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2)(C)(iii) and was eligible for a three strike life sentence.2 The complaint further alleged that Lizotte had two previous convictions for attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211), which constituted prior strike offenses (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). On June 24, 2024, following a six-day trial, the jury found Lizotte guilty on both counts, but found the section 1170.12 subdivision (c)(2)(C)(iii) allegation to not be true. After the jury entered its verdict, Lizotte admitted both prior strike offenses. On August 12, 2024, Lizotte appeared for sentencing. The trial court struck one of Lizotte’s prior strike offenses and reduced the charge on count 2 to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b)3. The court subsequently sentenced Lizotte to the following: (1) the lower term of 16 months in prison for possession of a firearm by a felon (count 1), doubled to 32 months based on the prior strike offense; and (2) a 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 This section provides, in relevant part, that if a defendant has two or more serious or violent prior felony convictions, and the current offense is not for a serious or violent felony, the defendant may still be sentenced to a life sentence if, “[d]uring the commission of the current offense, the defendant used a firearm, was armed with a firearm or deadly weapon, or intended to cause great bodily injury to another person.” (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii)) 3 Pursuant to this section, a crime that is punishable either by imprisonment in the state prison or imprisonment in a county jail can be deemed a misdemeanor by the court under specified circumstances. (§ 17, subd. (b).) 2 concurrent term of one year in county jail for possession of ammunition by a felon (count 2). Lizotte timely appealed. B. Factual Background 1. Prosecution’s Cas