Bryant Edwards v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing Sep 20 2019, 10:13 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kelly Starling Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Appellate Division
Indianapolis, Indiana Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bryant Edwards, September 20, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-757
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Linda E. Brown,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Steven J. Rubick,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G10-1805-CM-17445
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Bryant Edwards was charged with and convicted of Class A misdemeanor
carrying a handgun without a license after he was observed sitting in the
driver’s seat of a vehicle with a handgun stuck between his seat and the center
console, resting against his leg. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is
insufficient to prove that he possessed the handgun. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 29, 2018, Edwards’s girlfriend, Christy Mays, parked her vehicle
outside Davion Adams’s residence. Edwards, who claimed not to be feeling
well, remained in the vehicle, sitting alone in the driver’s seat. At some point
after Edwards had been sitting alone in the vehicle for a few hours, Adams
arrived at the residence and went to sit in the passenger seat of the vehicle with
Edwards. Shortly thereafter, police arrived at the residence to serve a warrant
on Adams for an unrelated case.
[3] Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Dustin Carmack approached the
passenger side of the vehicle and observed through the open window that there
was a handgun wedged between the driver’s seat and the center console. The
handgun was resting against Edwards’s leg and had an extended magazine that
protruded upwards approximately six inches.
[4] Edwards remained calm while the officers struggled to arrest Adams. He
complied with the officer’s requests and was handcuffed without incident.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 Page 2 of 6
During a subsequent search of the vehicle, officers found a pill bottle belonging
to Edwards and items belonging to Mays in the center console of the vehicle.
Mays indicated that there had been no firearm placed between the driver’s seat
and the center console of her vehicle when she drove it to Adams’s residence
earlier that day.
[5] On May 31, 2018, the State charged Edwards with Class A misdemeanor
carrying a handgun without a license and Class B misdemeanor possession of
marijuana. Following the State’s presentation of evidence at the November 20,
2018 bench trial, Edwards moved for an involuntary dismissal of both counts
pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 41(B). The trial court granted the motion with
regard to the possession-of-marijuana charge. The trial court then bifurcated
the trial and requested that the parties submit briefs on the issue of whether the
State had met its burden in proving the Class A misdemeanor handgun charge.
After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the trial court denied Edwards’s motion.
The trial court subsequently found Edwards guilty of Class A misdemeanor
carrying a handgun without a license and sentenced him 356 days. The trial
court awarded Edwards credit for time served, suspended the remainder of the
sentence, and imposed ninety days of non-reporting probation.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Edwards contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for
Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. Our standard of
review for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence is well-settled. Bell v.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 Page 3 of 6
State, 31 N.E.3d 495, 499 (Ind. 2015). “We do not reweigh the evidence or
assess the credibility of witnesses in reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence
claim.” Id. Conflicting evidence is considered “in the light most favorable to
the trial court’s finding.” Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). This is
because the factfinder, and not the appellate court, “is obliged to determine not
only whom to believe, but also what portions of conflicting testimony to
believe, and is not required to believe a witness’s testimony even when it is
uncontradicted.” Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (internal
quotation and brackets omitted). On appeal, we “look to the evidence and
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the verdict and will affirm
the conviction if there is probative evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder
could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Bell, 31
N.E.3d at 499.
[7] In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, Edwards
argues that the State failed to prove that he possessed the handgun. The
Indiana Supreme Court has held that possession may be either actual or
constructive. Gray, 957 N.E.2d at 174. “Actual possession occurs when a
person has direct physical control over the item.” Henderson v. State, 715
N.E.2d 833, 835 (Ind. 1999). “Constructive possession occurs when somebody
has the intent and capability to maintain dominion and control over the item.”
Id. (internal quotation omitted).
When constructive possession is asserted, the State must
demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge of the contraband. This
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 Page 4 of 6
knowledge may be inferred from either the exclusive dominion
and control over the premise containing the contraband or, if the
control is non-exclusive, evidence of additional circumstances
pointing to the defendant’s knowledge of the presence of the
contraband.
Woods v. State, 471 N.E.2d 691, 694 (Ind. 1984) (internal citations omitted).
Proof of dominion and control of contraband has been found
through a variety of means: (1) incriminating statements by the
defendant, (2) attempted flight or furtive gestures, (3) location of
substances like drugs in settings that suggest manufacturing, (4)
proximity of the contraband to the defendant, (5) location of the
contraband within the defendant’s plain view, and (6) the
mingling of the contraband with other items owned by the
defendant.
Henderson, 715 N.E.2d at 836 (internal citation omitted).
[8] In this case, the State presented evidence that the handgun was in close
proximity to Edwards, that the handgun was located within Edwards’s plain
view, and that it was co-mingled with other items belonging to Edwards. It is
undisputed that the handgun was in close proximity to Edwards and Officer
Carmack testified that it was touching Edwards’s thigh. In addition to its close
proximity to Edwards, the handgun was in plain view with its extended
magazine protruding upwards approximately six inches. Further, while it is
undisputed that the vehicle in which Edwards was sitting belonged to his
girlfriend, a pill bottle belonging to Edwards was found near the handgun in the
center console of the vehicle. These facts are sufficient to support the inference
that Edwards had knowledge of and constructively possessed the handgun.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 Page 5 of 6
Further, to the extent that Edwards argues that the evidence demonstrates that
Adams admitted that the handgun belonged to him, the evidence also
demonstrates that Adams denied that the handgun belonged to him. The trial
court, acting as the trier-of-fact, was in the best position to judge the credibility
of the evidence and determine which statements to believe. See Perry, 78
N.E.3d at 8.
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 Page 6 of 6