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 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 identified Johnson as the larger man who exited from the driver’s side.
Corporal Nathan Kuczera saw Johnson running with a rifle and raising it toward Kuczera’s marked patrol 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 the patrol vehicle and two rifle casings. A jury convicted Johnson of felonious assault as a lesser offense, third-degree fleeing and eluding, and felony-firearm offenses. 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 direct evidence showed Johnson holding the rifle 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, establishing constructive possession during the fleeing-and-eluding offense.
The court also upheld the departure sentences as reasonable and proportionate. The trial judge adequately explained both the departures and their extent by addressing Johnson’s recurring criminal conduct, similar prior encounters with police, allocution denying responsibility and accusing officers and counsel of wrongdoing, and low potential for rehabilitation. Those considerations supported sentences within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.
The court nevertheless remanded for correction of the judgment of sentence. Although the verdict form and the foreperson’s initial announcement listed three felony-firearm convictions, the trial court clarified that the jury found Johnson not guilty of the felony-firearm count tied to an underlying charge on which it had acquitted him. The written judgment therefore had to be corrected by removing that felony-firearm count.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s possession of a firearm immediately after leaving a vehicle may support an inference that he constructively possessed it while driving.
- Low rehabilitation potential, repeated similar criminal conduct, and a defendant’s allocution may support an above-guidelines sentence when the trial court explains how those considerations justify the departure and its extent.
- A written judgment must conform to the jury’s clarified verdict and may be corrected on remand as a ministerial matter.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates how circumstantial evidence can establish constructive firearm possession during a continuing offense even without testimony that the defendant physically held the weapon at the precise time of that offense. It also confirms that Michigan sentencing courts may consider rehabilitation potential when imposing and explaining a departure sentence.
The ruling further underscores the need to compare a judgment of sentence with the complete verdict proceedings, including any clarification and jury polling, because an inconsistency can require correction even when the convictions and sentences are otherwise affirmed.