Background
Romulus police responded to a report of an armed person in a purple vehicle. After an officer ordered the occupants of a purple Chrysler 300 to show their hands, the vehicle drove toward him, prompting him to jump aside. Police pursued the Chrysler through an apartment complex until it reached a dead end, crossed a carport and grass, and stopped. An officer saw Johnson, identified as the driver, leave the vehicle.
Another officer saw Johnson running with a rifle and raising it toward a marked patrol car. The officer ducked and heard gunfire, while a pursuing detective saw a muzzle flash and heard two shots. Police later found a bullet strike near the patrol car and two rifle casings. Johnson was convicted of felonious assault, 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 term.
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 holding the rifle while driving, evidence that he possessed it almost immediately after leaving the vehicle allowed 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 addressing Johnson’s repeated criminal conduct, similar prior encounters with police, low rehabilitation potential, and allocution denying responsibility and accusing officers and counsel of wrongdoing. The sentencing judge expressly considered the applicable guidelines and quantified the departures.
Finally, the court remanded for correction of the judgment of sentence. Although the verdict form and the foreperson initially indicated three felony-firearm convictions, the trial court clarified that the jury intended to acquit Johnson of the count tied to an underlying felony on which it had also acquitted him. The judgment must therefore be amended to remove one felony-firearm count.
Key Takeaways
- Possessing a firearm immediately after leaving a vehicle can support an inference of constructive possession while driving when the evidence shows knowledge, accessibility, and control.
- A sentencing court may consider a defendant’s low potential for rehabilitation when imposing an above-guidelines sentence.
- A departure sentence may be affirmed when the court considers the accurate guidelines and adequately explains why the offense and offender justify both the departure and its extent.
- An internally inconsistent verdict record may be corrected when the jury’s clarified and polled verdict establishes an acquittal on the disputed count.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates how circumstantial evidence can establish firearm possession during a related felony even without direct proof that the defendant held the weapon at that precise time. It also confirms that Michigan sentencing courts may rely on rehabilitation potential and an offender’s history when those considerations are tied to proportionality and explained sufficiently for appellate review.
The remand underscores the importance of comparing the written judgment with the jury’s clarified and polled verdict. A conviction appearing on a verdict form or judgment cannot stand when the completed verdict proceedings establish that the jury acquitted the defendant of that charge.