Background
Romulus police responded to a report of an armed person in a purple vehicle. When Sergeant Matthew Reese ordered the occupants of a purple Chrysler 300 to show their hands, the car backed out and drove toward him, forcing him to jump aside. Officers pursued the Chrysler until it reached a dead end, crossed a carport and grass, and stopped. Detective Jason Otter testified that Johnson, the larger of the two occupants, emerged from the driver’s side.
Corporal Nathan Kuczera saw the two men running, with the taller man carrying a rifle. Kuczera testified that the man raised the rifle toward his patrol car, causing him to duck, before gunfire sounded. Otter saw the taller man raise his arms, observed a muzzle flash, and heard two shots. Police later found evidence of a bullet strike near Kuczera’s vehicle and two rifle casings. Johnson was convicted of felonious assault as a lesser offense, third-degree fleeing and eluding, and felony-firearm. 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.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported the felony-firearm conviction associated with fleeing and eluding. Although no witness directly saw Johnson possess the rifle while driving, evidence that he had the firearm almost immediately after leaving the vehicle permitted the jury to infer that he knew where it was, could reasonably access it, and exercised control over it while driving. That circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession.
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 discussing Johnson’s criminal history, repetition of similar conduct, allocution, low perceived potential for rehabilitation, and the circumstances of the offenses. The appellate court concluded that rehabilitation potential was a legitimate sentencing consideration and that the sentences fell within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.
The court nevertheless agreed that the judgment of sentence erroneously listed a third felony-firearm conviction. Although the jury initially announced three such convictions, the trial court clarified that Johnson was not guilty of the felony-firearm count tied to an underlying felonious-assault charge on which he had been acquitted. The court remanded solely for the ministerial correction of removing that extra count.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s possession of a firearm immediately after leaving a vehicle can support an inference that the defendant constructively possessed it while driving.
- A trial court may rely on a defendant’s low potential for rehabilitation when imposing a departure sentence, provided it adequately explains why the sentence is proportionate and why the departure’s extent is justified.
- When a written judgment conflicts with the jury’s clarified and confirmed verdict, remand is appropriate to correct the judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how circumstantial evidence may establish constructive firearm possession even without direct proof that the weapon was in the defendant’s hands during the underlying felony. The relevant question is whether the evidence permits a rational inference that the defendant knew the weapon’s location and could access and control it.
It also confirms that above-guidelines sentences may rest on offense circumstances, criminal history, and rehabilitation prospects when the sentencing court connects those considerations to proportionality and addresses the extent of the departure. At the same time, the ruling underscores that the judgment of sentence must accurately reflect the jury’s final, clarified verdict.