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

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 20, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-757
• Status: Published

Opinion

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