People v. Davis , 2021 IL App (3d) 190040-U ( 2021 )

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2021 IL App (3d) 190040-UOrder filed August 12, 2021
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2021
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 21st Judicial Circuit,
) Kankakee County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-19-0040
v. ) Circuit No. 16-CF-174
)
COLEMAN HOWARD DAVIS JR., ) Honorable
) Clark E. Erickson,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Daugherity and Holdridge concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The State proved defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon
beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶2 Defendant, Coleman Howard Davis Jr., appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of
a weapon by a felon (UPWF), arguing the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
constructively possessed the firearm in question. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The State charged defendant with UPWF (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2016)) and unlawful
possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(d) (West 2016)). Before trial, the parties stipulated that
defendant had a prior felony conviction. The matter proceeded to a jury trial.
¶5 Officer Joshua Schneider of the Kankakee Police Department testified that he and several
other officers executed a search warrant on defendant’s residence on April 19, 2016. Schneider
found in defendant’s bedroom a firearm, ammunition, and proof of residence. The firearm was
loaded and was found between the mattress and the box spring. Officers also discovered cannabis
and a digital scale in the residence.
¶6 Letonya Simington testified that she was defendant’s fiancée and that they lived together.
According to Simington, defendant’s 17-year-old son, G.D., had been living with them for
approximately five months at the time of the search. Simington did not own a firearm, and she
denied having any knowledge of the firearm discovered in defendant’s bedroom. She also testified
that she did not smoke cannabis, did not bring cannabis into the residence, and knew nothing about
the cannabis found in the residence. Simington testified that, the night prior to the search, she and
defendant slept in the living room, not defendant’s bedroom.
¶7 On cross-examination, Simington explained that G.D. was living with her and defendant
for his safety because he had been shot while staying with his mother. The night before the search,
G.D. had two friends sleep over at the house. They slept in defendant’s bedroom while defendant
and Simington slept in the living room. G.D. had friends over two or three times per week.
¶8 Officer Ray Pasel of the Kankakee Police Department testified that he interviewed
Simington after the search, and the State played a video recording of the interview for the jury.
During the interview, Simington repeatedly asserted that no one else lived with her and defendant.
Simington said that she and defendant slept in the defendant’s bedroom. She noted that G.D. and
2
his friends visited frequently. Simington said the firearm found in defendant’s bedroom did not
belong to her. When Pasel specifically asked whether Simington and defendant were the only two
people who lived in the residence, Simington responded affirmatively.
¶9 The jury found defendant guilty of both charged offenses. The court sentenced defendant
to 5½ years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 11 Defendant argues the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he constructively
possessed the firearm, contending the State presented no evidence that defendant had knowledge
of the firearm.
¶ 12 “A criminal conviction will not be set aside unless the evidence is so improbable or
unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” People v. Collins, 106
Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985). It is not a reviewing court’s role to retry defendant; instead, we must ask
whether, “ ‘after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”
(Emphasis in original.) Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). The trier of
fact must “resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences
from the facts.” People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 35. A reviewing court will not replace the
trier of fact’s judgment with its own regarding the weight of the evidence or witnesses’ credibility.
Id. “The trier of fact is not required to accept or otherwise seek out any explanations of the
evidence that are consistent with a defendant’s innocence; nor is the trier of fact required to
disregard any inferences that do flow from the evidence.” People v. Bogan, 2017 IL App (3d)
150156, ¶ 26.
3
¶ 13 “It is unlawful for a person to knowingly possess *** in his own abode *** any firearm or
any firearm ammunition if the person has been convicted of a felony ***.” 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a)
(West 2016). “Where possession is an element of a charged offense, and a defendant is not found
in actual possession, the State must instead prove constructive possession.” Bogan, 2017 IL App
(3d) 150156, ¶ 27. “Constructive possession is frequently proven through circumstantial evidence
alone.” Id. Constructive possession may be proved by evidence that the defendant had knowledge
of the item’s presence and had immediate and exclusive control over the area where the item was
found. People v. Love, 404 Ill. App. 3d 784, 788 (2010). Proof that a defendant had control over
the premises where the item is found gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession of
that item. People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 335 (2010). A defendant’s proved habitation in the
premises where an item is found is sufficient evidence of control of the location to establish
constructive possession. People v. Spencer, 2012 IL App (1st) 102094, ¶ 17. Constructive
possession is not diminished by evidence of others access to contraband. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d at
338.
¶ 14 Here, the evidence showed that officers discovered the firearm in defendant’s bedroom,
along with proof of his residence. During her interview with Pasel, Simington repeatedly asserted
that she and defendant were the only individuals who lived in the residence, and that she had no
knowledge of the firearm found in the defendant’s bedroom. Further, while Simington testified
that G.D. and his friends spent the night before the search in defendant’s bedroom, she
acknowledged that she and defendant usually slept there. This evidence gives rise to the reasonable
inference that defendant had knowledge and possession of the firearm, thereby allowing a rational
trier of fact to conclude that defendant constructively possessed the firearm. See id. at 335;
Spencer, 2012 IL App (1st) 102094, ¶ 17. Thus, the evidence presented, viewed in the light most
4
favorable to the State, was sufficient to prove the elements of UPWF beyond a reasonable doubt.
See Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261.
¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 16 The judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is affirmed.
¶ 17 Affirmed.
5