MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 22 2017, 6:40 am
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
Yvette M. LaPlante Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Keating and LaPlante, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
Ian McLean
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brandon Artis, February 22, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
82A05-1608-CR-1747
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael J. Cox,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
82C01-1604-F4-2033
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1608-CR-1747 | February 22, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Brandon Artis (“Artis”) appeals his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a
Firearm by a Serious Violent Felon, a Level 4 felony.1 He presents the sole
issue of whether sufficient evidence supports the conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 6, 2016, Evansville Police Department officers were dispatched to a
residential neighborhood after someone reported suspected drug odors
emanating from a parked black truck. The caller had also indicated that the
truck occupants were blaring loud music.
[3] Officers Herbert Adams and Michael Beitler located a truck meeting the caller’s
description. As the officers approached, two passengers exited and walked
away from the truck. Officer Beitler attempted to speak to the men, but they
refused to engage in conversation. They walked to a nearby residence and
watched the officers from the window.
[4] Officer Adams approached the black vehicle, where he saw Artis sitting in the
driver’s seat. Artis opened the driver’s side door, and a conversation ensued.
Artis stated that he and his companions had been listening to music. In
response to the officer’s questions, Artis replied that the truck was not his and
1
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1608-CR-1747 | February 22, 2017 Page 2 of 5
that he did not have a driver’s license. He refused permission to search the
vehicle.
[5] One of the officers advised Artis that the vehicle was illegally parked, and it
would probably need to be towed. Artis was told that he could “head off and
leave the keys.” (Tr. at 49.) Alternatively, the officer suggested that Artis could
“go in there and find the owner,” who would then be asked to consent to a
search. (Tr. at 49.) An unidentified woman appeared and offered to allow
Artis to “leave [the truck] right here.” (Tr. at 51.) However, she also denied
ownership of the truck.
[6] At some point during the encounter, Officer Beitler saw a Ruger .45 caliber
pistol under the driver’s seat. He alerted other officers, and Artis was arrested.
Inside Artis’s right front jacket pocket was a magazine compatible with a Ruger
.45 caliber pistol.
[7] On June 15, 2016, Artis was brought to trial on a charge of Unlawful
Possession of a Firearm by a Serious Violent Felon. At the conclusion of the
first stage of the bifurcated proceedings, a jury found that Artis had possessed a
firearm. He then admitted that he is a serious violent felon, having previously
been convicted of armed robbery. The trial court entered judgment and
sentenced Artis to six years imprisonment. Artis now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1608-CR-1747 | February 22, 2017 Page 3 of 5
[8] Indiana Code Section 35-47-4-5(c) provides: “A serious violent felon who
knowingly or intentionally possesses a firearm commits unlawful possession of
a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony.” Artis claims that the
State failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knowingly or
intentionally possessed the handgun.
[9] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal
conviction, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility.
McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). Considering only the
evidence supporting the verdict and any reasonable inferences to be drawn
therefrom, we will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value such
that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[10] The possession of contraband may be characterized as either actual or
constructive. Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d 833, 835 (Ind. 1999). Actual
possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over the item and
constructive possession occurs when someone has the intent and capability to
maintain dominion and control over the item. Id. Here, the State asserted that
Artis constructively possessed the handgun found under the driver’s seat where
he was seated. When constructive possession is asserted, the State must
demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge of the contraband. Id.
[11] Proof of dominion and control of contraband has been found through such
means as: (1) incriminating statements made by a defendant, (2) attempted
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1608-CR-1747 | February 22, 2017 Page 4 of 5
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. Id. at
836.
[12] Here, officers testified to the following circumstances. Artis was sitting in the
driver’s seat of the black truck as officers approached. A Ruger .45 caliber
pistol was visible from underneath the driver’s seat of that vehicle. A magazine,
compatible with a Ruger .45 caliber pistol, was found in Artis’s right front
jacket pocket. Inside the black truck were items of Artis’s clothing and his
identification card. Sufficient evidence was presented from which the jury
could reasonably have concluded that Artis constructively possessed the
handgun.
Conclusion
[13] Artis’s conviction is supported by sufficient evidence.
[14] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1608-CR-1747 | February 22, 2017 Page 5 of 5