Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CR-1242
12-07-2021
Brandon Allen THOMPSON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Attorney for Appellant: David W. Stone IV, Anderson, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Catherine E. Brizzi, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorney for Appellant: David W. Stone IV, Anderson, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Catherine E. Brizzi, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
[1] On October 11, 2019, police officers responded to a report that a vehicle had crashed into a mobile home and observed Brandon Thompson, the sole occupant, asleep in the vehicle in question. He was subsequently found to be in possession of clonazepam, a schedule IV controlled substance; synthetic marijuana; and a loaded .40 caliber Hi-Point pistol. Thompson was subsequently charged with and convicted of Class A misdemeanor illegal possession of a controlled substance and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon ("SVF").
[2] Thompson challenges his conviction for Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF, arguing that the pistol did not qualify as a firearm because it was inoperable at the time it was recovered by police. Given relevant authority providing otherwise, we conclude that the pistol did qualify as a firearm. We further conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Thompson's conviction. Having reached this conclusion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On October 11, 2019, Chesterfield police officers Alex Wagner and Grant Stephens were dispatched to the Royal Oaks Trailer Park after receiving a report indicating that a vehicle had crashed into the front of the trailer located on Lot 240. Upon arriving to Lot 240, Officers Wagner and Stephens observed that a black Mercedes-Benz had wrecked into the trailer. Officers Wagner and Stephens approached the vehicle and found Thompson, the sole occupant, asleep in the front passenger seat. Officer Wagner opened the front driver's side door, which was the only door that was unlocked, and attempted to wake Thompson. When he opened the door, Officer Wagner observed a ".40 caliber Hi-Point [pistol] tucked into the driver's side door." Tr. Vol. I p. 172. Officer Wagner removed the weapon and, before placing it in a locked container, removed the magazine and noticed the pistol "was loaded with eight (8) rounds." Tr. Vol. I p. 173.
[4] Officers Wagner and Stephens eventually woke Thompson and removed him from the vehicle. Thompson was unable to coherently communicate with Officers Wagner and Stephens, indicating that he "was going to get donuts." Tr. Vol. I pp. 179–80. Thompson did not appear to comprehend the officers’ questions and exhibited poor balance and slurred speech. He also failed a number of field sobriety tests. Thompson submitted to a blood draw, with the sample testing positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine. In addition to the pistol, during a search incident to Thompson's arrest, officers recovered a large plastic bag of synthetic marijuana and a pill bottle containing twelve pills, which were later determined to be clonazepam, a schedule IV controlled substance for which he did not have a valid prescription.
[5] The State charged Thompson with two counts of Class A misdemeanor illegal possession of a controlled substance, Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF. On April 26, 2021, the State dismissed one of the charges alleging that he had possessed a controlled substance. The trial court conducted a two-day jury trial on the remaining charges on April 28 and 29, 2021.
[6] Thompson testified during trial that at the time of the incident, he was high on methamphetamine, marijuana, clonazepam, and synthetic drugs. Detective Trent Chamberlin, a firearms instructor and armorer for the Anderson Police Department, examined and tested the pistol recovered from Thompson's vehicle. Detective Chamberlin testified that the pistol was both designed to expel a projectile by means of an explosion and could have been disassembled and reassembled into an operable firearm in approximately forty seconds. He further testified that based on his knowledge of firearms, he was "ninety-nine and a half percent" sure that an individual "could take this firearm apart, flip the safety lever over, put it back together, and it would operate because [he saw] nothing broken." Tr. Vol. II p. 90.
[7] At the conclusion of which the jury found Thompson guilty of illegal possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF. The jury found Thompson not guilty of the operating while intoxicated charge. The trial court subsequently sentenced Thompson to an aggregate nine-year sentence, with six years executed and three years suspended to probation.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Thompson contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF.
Thompson does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he illegally possessed a controlled substance.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.
Drane v. State , 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (cleaned up). Stated differently, " ‘[w]e affirm the judgment unless no reasonable factfinder could find the defendant guilty.’ " Mardis v. State , 72 N.E.3d 936, 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Griffith v. State , 59 N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016) ).
[9] In order to prove that Thompson committed Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF, the State was required to prove that Thompson was an SVF who knowingly or intentionally possessed a firearm. Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c). An SVF is "a person who has been convicted of committing a serious violent felony." Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(a). The term "firearm" means "any weapon: (1) that is: (A) capable of expelling; or (B) designed to expel; or (2) that may readily be converted to expel; a projectile by means of an explosion." Ind. Code § 35-47-1-5. We have previously concluded that this definition includes weapons that are inoperable, so long as the weapon was designed to expel or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by means of an explosion. See Staten v. State , 844 N.E.2d 186, 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (providing that a disassembled weapon was sufficient to meet the definition of a firearm because it could readily be converted to expel a projectile by means of an explosion), trans. denied ; State v. Gibbs , 769 N.E.2d 594, 596–97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (providing that it is sufficient for the state to establish that the weapon was designed to expel a projectile by means of an explosion); Manley v. State , 656 N.E.2d 277, 279 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) ("According to the plain terms of the statutes, Indiana law does not require that the State prove a handgun is operable to obtain a conviction ... [t]hat the handgun was designed to expel a projectile [b]y means of an explosion is sufficient."), trans. denied.
[10] Thompson admitted below that he is an SVF and does not dispute that he possessed the pistol in question. In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, Thompson argues only that because the pistol was inoperable at the time, it did not qualify as a firearm. We disagree.
[11] Again, Thompson was found in possession of a loaded .40 caliber Hi-Point pistol. Detective Chamberlin, a firearms instructor and armorer, testified that the weapon was both designed to expel a projectile by means of an explosion and could have been disassembled and reassembled into an operable firearm in approximately forty seconds. Given Detective Chamberlin's testimony coupled with the relevant statutory authority and case law, we conclude that despite Thompson's claim to the contrary, the pistol recovered from his vehicle clearly met the definition of a firearm. Thompson's possession of the pistol is therefore sufficient to prove he possessed a firearm and, consequently, sustain his conviction for Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF.
[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.