In People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, two defendants were found in a motel room. Sifuentes was lying on one bed and his codefendant was kneeling next to the other bed. A handgun was found under the mattress of the second bed and the codefendant may have been trying to reach it. (Id. at pp. 1413-1414.) Although there was "'gang gun'" evidence in Sifuentes, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1415, the appellate court found it insufficient to show that Sifuentes had the right to control that gun at that time. Furthermore, in Sifuentes peace officers entered a motel room to arrest Sifuentes on an outstanding warrant; he and the codefendant were found with two women in what might be called compromising positions. (Id. at p. 1414.) There was no showing that Sifuentes and his codefendant were engaged in any joint criminal activity at the time. In People v. Sifuentes (2011) police found convicted felons Sifuentes and Lopez in a motel room. Sifuentes was lying on top of the bed nearest the door, while Lopez was kneeling on the floor on the far side of the second bed. A loaded handgun was found under the mattress next to where Lopez knelt. (Id. at pp. 1413-1414.) At trial, a gang expert testified Sifuentes and Lopez were active participants in a particular criminal street gang; guns played a prominent role in the gang subculture and a "gang gun" was a gun passed freely among gang members for use in their criminal endeavors; aside from certain restrictions, a "gang gun" was accessible to all gang members at most times; and a gang member possessing a gun would inform other gang members that he had a firearm. (Id. at pp. 1414-1416.) Sifuentes was convicted, inter alia, of possession of a firearm by a felon, based on the doctrine of constructive possession. (Sifuentes, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1413, 1417.) On appeal, he claimed the evidence was insufficient to support a finding he had the right to control the firearm discovered near Lopez. (Id. at p. 1413.) The Court of Appeal agreed, concluding: "The prosecutor failed to elicit from the expert any substantial evidence Sifuentes had the right to control the firearm. The expert did not testify all gang members had the right to control communal gang guns, assuming this firearm fell into that category. Rather, ... he testified certain restrictions applied concerning 'access' to a gang gun and did not explain these restrictions or whether he equated access with a right to control. Nor did the expert link Sifuentes to the particular firearm found next to Lopez." (Id. at p. 1419.)