Lawrence Lucas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jan 21 2020, 7:56 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Steven Knecht Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lawrence Lucas, January 21, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1264
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Randy J. Williams,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D01-1704-F4-20
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1264 | January 21, 2020 Page 1 of 6
[1] Lawrence Lucas appeals his conviction of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of
a firearm by a serious violent felon.1 He raises one issue on appeal, which is
whether the State presented sufficient evidence that he committed the crime.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 11, 2016, around 9:30 a.m., the Lafayette Police Department
responded to a report of battery. Police arrived at an apartment complex and
found Bernard Brooks, who was bleeding from his mouth, had swelling around
his face and eyes, and had blood on his clothing. Brooks explained that he was
in a relationship with Lucas’ mother and that he would sometimes stay at
Lucas’ house after arguments with Lucas’ mother. Brooks reported that
overnight he had fallen asleep on the floor in Lucas’ house and that sometime
thereafter, Lucas’ mother and sister began punching him and hitting him with a
baseball bat. They also took Brooks’ wallet and cellphone. Brooks managed to
get out the back door and run for safety, but he left some of his possessions
behind in Lucas’ home. Brooks described to police where the attack occurred.
The police located the home, finding Lucas and another male there. Lucas
denied police access to the home to investigate the allegations.
1
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1264 | January 21, 2020 Page 2 of 6
[3] Police obtained a warrant to search Lucas’ home and garage. While searching
the garage, police noticed a chemical smell and a large object covered with a
blanket in the backseat of a vehicle. Upon closer inspection, the police
recognized the items as raw materials for manufacturing synthetic marijuana.
The police then obtained a second search warrant authorizing a search for
evidence of suspected narcotics activity. During the second search, police
found 9mm ammunition and .45 caliber ammunition in a kitchen drawer. In
addition, the police found a loaded .25 caliber Beretta handgun in a bedroom
dresser drawer.
[4] The State charged Lucas with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm
by a serious violent felon, Level 6 felony dealing in a synthetic drug, 2 and Class
A misdemeanor possession of a synthetic drug. 3 After a bench trial, 4 the trial
court found Lucas guilty of all charges. The court imposed an eight-year
sentence for Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent
felon and a two-year sentence for Level 6 felony dealing in a synthetic drug, and
it vacated the conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of a synthetic
drug. The court ordered the sentences be served consecutively, for a cumulative
2
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10.5(c)(2).
3
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11.5(c).
4
Before trial, Lucas challenged the constitutionality of the police search of the vehicle inside the garage,
which search provided justification for the second search warrant, the execution of which uncovered the
Beretta in Lucas’ bedroom. The trial court granted Lucas’ motion to suppress, and the State appealed that
decision. On appeal, we reversed the grant of that motion and remanded for trial. State v. Lucas, 112 N.E.3d
726, 731 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1264 | January 21, 2020 Page 3 of 6
sentence of ten years. The court further ordered three years suspended to
supervised probation and seven years served executed, five of those seven years
served in the Department of Correction and two served in community
corrections.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Lucas challenges only his conviction of possession of a firearm by a serious
violent felon. When reviewing claims of insufficient evidence, we examine the
evidence presented in a light most favorable to the verdict. Pierce v. State, 29
N.E.3d 1258, 1265 (Ind. 2015). Assessment of witness credibility and
evaluation of the evidence is the role of the fact-finder. Wright v. State, 828
N.E.2d 904, 905-906 (Ind. 2005). We give deference to the trial court and
affirm the verdict unless there is “no substantial evidence of probative value to
support it.” Pierce, 29 N.E.3d at 1265. We consider evidence sufficient if a
conclusion can be “reasonably drawn from it to support the verdict.” Drane v.
State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007).
[6] Lucas asserts there is insufficient evidence supporting his conviction because
the State failed to prove he constructively possessed the firearm found in the
dresser drawer in the bedroom of his home. To determine whether a defendant
constructively possessed an item, we consider a two-prong test adopted by our
Indiana Supreme Court. The first prong is whether the defendant had “the
capability to maintain dominion and control over the item.” Gray v. State, 957
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1264 | January 21, 2020 Page 4 of 6
N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). The second prong asks whether the defendant
had “the intent to maintain dominion and control over [the item].” Id.
[7] The first prong, capability, may be demonstrated by showing the defendant had
a possessory interest in the location where the firearm was found. Id.
Capability may be inferred even when the possessory interest is non-exclusive.
Id. Lucas concedes he had a possessory interest in the house, as he was renting
and residing in the house. Lucas had been staying at the house by himself for
several months because his wife and children had moved out. Lucas slept and
watched television in the bedroom where the firearm was found, and the
firearm was in the same unlocked dresser drawer as the remotes Lucas used for
the television. This evidence demonstrates Lucas had the capability to take the
firearm into his possession. See Massey v. State, 816 N.E.2d 979, 990 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2004) (exclusive control of the location of firearms unnecessary to
establish constructive possession because of the ability to take the guns into
personal possession).
[8] The second prong, intent to maintain dominion and control, may be shown by
the State demonstrating the defendant knew the gun was in the house. See
Gray, 957 N.E.2d at 175 (discussing possession of marijuana). Knowledge may
be inferred from either exclusive dominion over the premises or control of the
specific location where the firearm was found. See id. If control of the location
is not exclusive, the State must produce additional evidence establishing the
defendant’s knowledge of the firearm. See id. Such additional evidence may
include incriminating statements, the location of the firearm being within the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1264 | January 21, 2020 Page 5 of 6
defendant’s view, the location being in proximity to the defendant, or the
intermingling of the firearm with other possessions owned by the defendant.
See id. at 175.
[9] The firearm was kept in Lucas’ bedroom, in an unlocked dresser drawer that
also housed the remote controls for the television that sat on the dresser. Lucas’
wife testified Lucas would watch television in the bedroom. It is reasonable to
infer Lucas would use the remotes to watch television and he would have
noticed the firearm whenever he used the remotes. This evidence supports
determining Lucas knew about the presence of the gun, such that he had both
the capability and the intent to maintain dominion and control over the gun.
See Carnes v. State, 480 N.E.2d 581, 587 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (finding the
contraband was located where “a reasonable person could reasonably infer
from the evidence that neither of the two adults was trying to hide contraband
from the other”).
Conclusion
[10] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Lucas’ conviction of Level 4
felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. As that is the
only conviction Lucas challenges, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
[11] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1264 | January 21, 2020 Page 6 of 6