What is the test for overturning a conviction under section 11370.70.1, subdivision (a) of the California Anti-Doping Code for possessing a firearm while armed with a loaded, operable firearm?

"In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears 'that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].' [Citation.]" (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)

B. The Evidence Was Sufficient

Section 11370.1, subdivision (a), provides, in relevant part: "Notwithstanding Section 11350 or 11377 or any other provision of law, every person who unlawfully possesses any amount of a substance containing . . . methamphetamine, . . . while armed with a loaded, operable firearm is guilty of a felony . . . ." This statute was enacted in 1989, and it "created a new felony for unlawfully possessing certain quantities of controlled substances while in the immediate personal possession of a loaded, operable firearm." (People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1082 (Pena).) Section 11370.1 was amended in 1991 "to replace the phrase 'while in the immediate personal possession of ' with 'while armed with' a loaded, operable firearm." (Pena, at p. 1083.) The amendment defined " 'armed with' " as "available for immediate offensive or defensive use." ( 11370.1, subd. (a); see Pena, supra, at p. 1083.) "This definition is consistent with the well-established construction of 'armed' given to firearm enhancements such as

Page 5