Isiah Williams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
Feb 27 2017, 9:36 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara J. Simmons Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Justin F. Roebel
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Isiah Williams, February 27, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1606-CR-1204
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Shannon L.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Logsdon, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G21-1507-CM-25444
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Isiah Williams appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for carrying a
handgun without a license, as a Class A misdemeanor. Williams raises one
issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to
support his conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On the afternoon of July 14, 2015, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department (“IMPD”) Officer Jacqueline Stackman surveilled Bryisha
Dickerson’s apartment and Dickerson’s vehicle in order to execute a warrant
that authorized a buccal swab of Dickerson’s boyfriend, Williams. After
Officer Stackman arrived she requested backup. Approximately thirty-five
minutes later, IMPD Officers Steve Scott, Erik Forestal, and Brian Allen
arrived at the scene. Officer Stackman then saw Williams and Dickerson exit
Dickerson’s apartment. Williams was using crutches. Dickerson assisted
Williams into the driver’s seat of her vehicle.
[3] As Williams was entering the vehicle, Officer Scott pulled his vehicle in front of
it and activated the emergency lights. Officer Scott stated to Williams, “Police,
show me your hands.” Tr. at 12. At the time, Williams was leaning across the
driver’s seat and middle console and down into the passenger-side floorboard.
Id. at 13, 26, 34. According to Officer Scott, Williams appeared to be “either
reaching for something or putting something away.” Id. at 34. Williams
complied with the officer’s order to show his hands, and the officers secured
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 2017 Page 2 of 6
him. Officers Stackman and Scott then observed a handgun visible on the
passenger side floorboard.
[4] During a pat down for weapons, Officer Scott asked Williams, “Do you have
any weapons on you?” Id. at 38. Williams pointed to the handgun on the
floorboard and stated, “Yes, I have one right there.” Id. at 38, 43. One of the
IMPD officers arrested and searched Williams and found marijuana in his
pants pocket. A crime scene specialist later recovered the handgun but found
no fingerprints on the weapon.
[5] The State charged Williams with carrying a handgun without a license, as a
Class A misdemeanor, and possession of marijuana, as a Class B
misdemeanor.1 At the bench trial, Dickerson testified that the handgun was
hers, that she had received it that day as a gift from her friend Roy Cole, and
that Cole had left the gun in Dickerson’s vehicle. According to Dickerson, Cole
placed the gun in the car “a pretty good time” prior to when the police arrived,
but she acknowledged that she had previously claimed under oath that Cole
placed the gun in the car “a couple of minutes” before police arrived. Id. at 64,
69. The officers also testified and informed the court that Williams had
identified the firearm as his at the scene. The court found Williams guilty as
charged. In support of its judgment, the court stated that it did not find
1
Williams does not appeal his conviction for possession of marijuana.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 2017 Page 3 of 6
Dickerson to be a credible witness. The court sentenced Williams accordingly,
and this appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Williams contends that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to support
his conviction for carrying a handgun without a license. In reviewing a
sufficiency of the evidence claim, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess
the credibility of the witnesses. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375
(Ind. 2010). We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences
therefrom that support the conviction, Gorman v. State, 968 N.E.2d 845, 847
(Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied, and we “consider conflicting evidence most
favorably to the trial court’s ruling,” Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 346, 352 (Ind.
2005). We affirm if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
from that evidence “could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 925 N.E.2d at 375.
[7] To prove Williams carried a handgun without a license, the State was required
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams carried a handgun “in any
vehicle or on or about [his] body without being licensed . . . to carry a
handgun.” Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1(a) (2015). “To satisfy these elements, the
State must prove the defendant had either actual or constructive possession of
the handgun.” Deshazier v. State, 877 N.E.2d 200, 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007),
trans. denied. “A person constructively possesses contraband when the person
has (1) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 2017 Page 4 of 6
the intent to maintain dominion and control over it.” Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d
171, 174 (Ind. 2011).
[8] Both capability to control and intent to control may be inferred from the
defendant’s possessory interest in the location where the firearm is found, even
when that possessory interest is not exclusive. Id. However, when the
possessory interest is not exclusive,
the State must support th[e] inference [of intent to control the
item] with additional circumstances pointing to the defendant’s
knowledge of the presence and the nature of the item. We have
previously identified some possible examples, including (1) a
defendant's incriminating statements; (2) a defendant's
attempting to leave or making furtive gestures; (3) the location of
contraband like drugs in settings suggesting manufacturing; (4)
the item's proximity to the defendant; (5) the location of
contraband within the defendant's plain view; and (6) the
mingling of contraband with other items the defendant owns.
Id. at 174-75 (internal citations omitted). This list, however, is not exhaustive.
Johnson v. State, 59 N.E.3d 1071, 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The ultimate
inquiry is whether a reasonable fact-finder could conclude from the evidence
that the defendant knew of the nature and presence of the contraband. Id.(citing Gray, 957 N.E.2d at 174-75).
[9] Here, Williams did not have exclusive control over the vehicle in which the
handgun was located. However, the handgun was in plain view on the
floorboard of a vehicle solely occupied by Williams. Williams reached toward
the area where the gun was found as officers arrived. When asked if he had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 2017 Page 5 of 6
weapons, Williams admitted, “Yes, I have one right there” and pointed to the
firearm, which demonstrated that he had knowledge of the presence and nature
of the handgun in the car. Tr. at 38, 43. And, while Williams did not own the
car, he was entering the driver’s seat and had the key to the vehicle. That was
sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Williams
constructively possessed the firearm. See, e.g., Grim v. State, 797 N.E.2d 825,
831 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that the defendant’s “close proximity to the
handguns, in addition to the fact that one of the handguns was plainly visible
when the passenger door was open and that there were bullets and ammunition
in plain view, [was] sufficient circumstantial evidence” to support the
conviction of carrying a handgun without a license).
[10] However, Williams contends that the evidence was insufficient because
Dickerson testified that someone else placed the handgun in the car and it is
possible that Williams may not have been reaching toward the gun but rather
“attempting to position his [injured] body” into the car. Appellant’s Br. at 13.
This contention is simply a request that we reweigh the evidence and reevaluate
the credibility of Dickerson, which we will not do. See, Jackson, 925 N.E.2d at
375. We affirm Williams’ conviction.
[11] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 2017 Page 6 of 6