Background
Romulus police officers responded to a report of an armed person inside a purple vehicle at an apartment complex. When Sergeant Matthew Reese ordered the occupants of a purple Chrysler 300 to exit and show their hands, the vehicle backed out and drove toward him, forcing him to jump aside. Police pursued the Chrysler until it reached a dead end, crossed a carport and grass, and stopped. Detective Jason Otter saw a shorter man leave the passenger side and defendant Dejon Demarkus-Roland Johnson leave the driver’s side.
Corporal Nathan Kuczera then saw the taller suspect carrying a rifle and raising it toward Kuczera’s marked police vehicle. Kuczera ducked and heard gunfire, while Otter saw a muzzle flash and heard two shots. Police later found evidence of a bullet strike near Kuczera’s vehicle and two rifle casings. Johnson and the other suspect were arrested after being found hiding in a wooded area.
A jury convicted Johnson of felonious assault as a lesser offense, third-degree fleeing and eluding, and felony-firearm charges. The trial court imposed above-guidelines sentences of 32 to 48 months for felonious assault and 40 to 60 months for fleeing and eluding, along with the mandatory felony-firearm terms. Johnson challenged the evidence supporting the felony-firearm conviction associated with fleeing and eluding, the proportionality of his departure sentences, and an extra felony-firearm count appearing on his judgment of sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported the finding that Johnson constructively possessed the rifle while fleeing and eluding. Although no witness directly saw him holding the gun while driving, he possessed it almost immediately after leaving the vehicle. A rational jury could infer that, while driving, he knew where the rifle was, could reasonably access it, and exercised control over it.
The court also upheld the departure sentences as reasonable and proportionate. The trial court adequately explained both its decision to depart and the extent of the departures by addressing Johnson’s criminal history, repeated similar conduct, low perceived potential for rehabilitation, allocution, and the circumstances of the offenses. Potential for rehabilitation was a legitimate sentencing consideration, and the resulting sentences fell within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.
The court agreed, however, that the judgment of sentence incorrectly listed an additional felony-firearm conviction. Although the jury foreperson initially announced three felony-firearm convictions, the trial court clarified that the jury was acquitting Johnson of the count tied to an underlying felony on which it had also acquitted him. The court affirmed Johnson’s convictions and sentences but remanded for the ministerial correction of removing that felony-firearm count.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s possession of a firearm immediately after leaving a vehicle can support an inference that he constructively possessed it while driving, even without direct evidence of possession inside the vehicle.
- A sentencing court may rely on a defendant’s criminal history, conduct, allocution, and potential for rehabilitation when adequately explaining an above-guidelines sentence and the extent of the departure.
- When the jury’s clarified and polled verdict conflicts with the judgment of sentence, remand is appropriate to correct the judgment to reflect the verdict actually rendered.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates how Michigan courts apply constructive-possession principles to felony-firearm charges when a weapon is not observed until moments after the underlying felony. Temporal proximity, accessibility, and the defendant’s later control of the weapon may collectively permit a jury to find possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
It also reinforces that departure sentences require an appellate-reviewable explanation tied to offense seriousness and offender characteristics, while confirming that clerical sentencing records must accurately reflect the jury’s final, clarified verdict.