2020 IL App (1st) 180528-U

No. 1-18-0528 

Order filed January 10, 2020 

Fifth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as 

precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JESSE LAWRENCE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of 

Cook County. 

No. 15 CR 9026 

Honorable 

Michael B. McHale, 

Judge, presiding. 

JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Presiding Justice Hoffman and Justice Delort concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Defendant’s conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon is affirmed where 

the evidence supported the trial court’s inference that he constructively possessed 

a firearm. 

¶ 2 After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated unlawful use of 

a weapon (AUUW). The court merged the counts and sentenced defendant to one year’s 

imprisonment. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he 

possessed the firearm. We affirm. 
No. 1-18-0528 

- 2 - 

¶ 3 Defendant was charged by information with nine counts of AUUW. The State proceeded 

on counts I-III, which alleged, in relevant part, that defendant knowingly carried in a vehicle an 

uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible firearm when he was not on his land, in his dwelling, 

or in his place of business, and lacked a valid concealed carry license (CCL) or Firearm Owner’s 

Identification (FOID) card. 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A-5); (a)(1), (a)(3)(C) (West 2014). 

¶ 4 The court held a hearing on defendant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence

simultaneously with his bench trial. The State called Detective Bradley Ruzak, who testified that 

on May 26, 2015, at 8:52 p.m., he was on patrol in an unmarked vehicle with Officer Damen 

Balesteri and Officer Dawn Hubbard.1 Detective Ruzak saw a tan Chevrolet Cavalier run a stop 

sign on 65th Street and turn onto Stewart Avenue. Detective Ruzak activated his vehicle’s

emergency equipment and initiated a traffic stop. Defendant was the driver and sole occupant of 

the Cavalier. 

¶ 5 Detective Ruzak looked into the Cavalier as he exited his vehicle and noticed defendant 

“move his shoulders or make movements *** that were suspicious in nature.” The officers 

approached the Cavalier. Detective Ruzak went to defendant’s window and asked for his driver’s 

license. Defendant was unable to produce a license. Detective Ruzak also smelled cannabis. He 

asked defendant to exit the Cavalier and detained him. 

¶ 6 Detective Ruzak searched the Cavalier using his flashlight. He noticed that the driver’s 

side seatbelt compartment was ajar, illuminated it, and saw what he recognized as the handle of a 

1

 The first names of Officers Balesteri and Hubbard do not appear in the report of proceedings; 

but their first names are listed in an arrest report. 
No. 1-18-0528 

- 3 - 

firearm. Detective Ruzak removed the firearm, a loaded blue steel .40-caliber semiautomatic. 

Detective Ruzak determined that defendant did not have a FOID card or CCL, and arrested him. 

¶ 7 On cross-examination, Detective Ruzak admitted he could not see the handle without his 

flashlight. The firearm was “concealed” in the compartment such that only the handle was visible 

when he illuminated the area. After observing the handle, he pulled back the compartment’s frame 

to recover the firearm. Defendant did not own the Cavalier. He was given Miranda warnings on 

the scene, but refused to speak without an attorney present.

¶ 8 On redirect examination, Detective Ruzak clarified that the seatbelt compartment where he 

located the firearm was situated at shoulder height. He explained that “there is a driver’s side door, 

and then there is a passenger driver’s side door, and *** that frame is split between the two doors 

that holds the housing for the seatbelt.” On recross-examination, Detective Ruzak stated he did not 

know exactly what defendant’s “suspicious” movements entailed; it was possible defendant was 

“moving to the sound of music on his radio” or “searching for his driver’s license.” No fingerprints 

were recovered from the seatbelt compartment. 

¶ 9 Officer Balesteri testified that he helped Detective Ruzak search the vehicle. In the glove 

compartment, Officer Balesteri found receipts for tolls incurred by the Cavalier which defendant 

had paid. The receipts, which were entered into evidence, were dated February 8, 2015. 

¶ 10 The State entered a stipulation that at the time of arrest, defendant did not have a FOID 

card or CCL. 

¶ 11 The trial court denied defendant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. In his 

case-in-chief, defendant entered a certified document from the Secretary of State of Illinois 

showing that on May 26, 2015, defendant had a valid driver’s license. Defense counsel moved for 
No. 1-18-0528 

- 4 - 

a directed verdict, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish defendant possessed the 

firearm. The State argued defendant had constructive possession of the firearm because he was the 

sole occupant of the vehicle and Detective Ruzak saw defendant make furtive movements. 

¶ 12 The court denied the motion for a directed verdict, explaining that “the fact that the 

compartment *** was still left ajar is strong circumstantial evidence that the defendant placed [the 

firearm] there after being pulled over and it does show knowledge.” The parties declined further 

argument, and the court found defendant guilty on counts I-III. 

¶ 13 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence 

and a motion for a new trial, both of which the trial court denied. The case proceeded to sentencing, 

where the court merged the counts and sentenced defendant to one year’s imprisonment.2

Defendant did not file a motion to reconsider sentence. 

¶ 14 On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he 

possessed the firearm. 

¶ 15 We must first determine the appropriate standard of review. Defendant argues that de novo

review applies because the operative facts are undisputed. See People v. Lucas, 231 Ill. 2d 169, 

174 (2008). The State argues that we should apply the standard for reviewing the sufficiency of 

the evidence pursuant to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). We agree with the State.

¶ 16 Detective Ruzak testified as to the circumstances of the traffic stop and his recovery of the 

firearm. Based on those circumstances, the trial court inferred that defendant had constructive 

possession of the firearm. Defendant argues that this inference was not supported by the record. 

2

 The trial court did not state the count into which the other counts merged, nor does this

information appear on the mittimus.
No. 1-18-0528 

- 5 - 

Challenges to inferences made by the trial court are reviewed for the sufficiency of the evidence. 

See People v. Loggins, 2019 IL App (1st) 160482, ¶¶ 29-32. 

¶ 17 When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court considers the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determines whether any rational fact finder

could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Drake, 2019 IL 123734, 

¶ 21. At a bench trial, the judge is the fact finder and makes all determinations regarding witness 

credibility, the weight of evidence, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the testimony.

People v. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d 213, 233 (2009). The reviewing court must not substitute its 

judgment for that of the fact finder regarding the weight of evidence and witness credibility. People 

v. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 12. The reviewing court “will not reverse the trial court’s judgment 

unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable 

doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” People v. Newton, 2018 IL 122958, ¶ 24. 

¶ 18 To establish the elements of AUUW, the State was required to prove, in relevant part, that 

defendant possessed a firearm in a vehicle and did not have a valid CCL or FOID card at the time. 

720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A-5); (a)(1), (a)(3)(C) (West 2014). Here, defendant challenges 

the sufficiency of the evidence regarding possession. 

¶ 19 To establish this element, the State may introduce evidence that a defendant had either 

actual or constructive possession of a firearm. People v. Faulkner, 2017 IL App (1st) 132884, ¶ 39. 

Here, the State pursued a constructive possession theory. “To establish constructive possession, 

the State must prove that the defendant: (1) had knowledge of the presence of the weapon and (2) 

exercised immediate and exclusive control over the area where the weapon was found.” Id. Both 
No. 1-18-0528 

- 6 - 

elements can be proven through circumstantial evidence. People v. McCurine, 2019 IL App (1st) 

160817, ¶¶ 22-24. 

¶ 20 “Control is established when the defendant has the capability and intent to maintain 

dominion and control over the contraband.” People v. Jackson, 2019 IL App (1st) 161745, ¶ 27. 

A defendant’s control over a vehicle from which contraband is recovered, including driving the 

vehicle, can support an inference that the defendant controlled the area where the weapon was 

found. See People v. McNeely, 99 Ill. App. 3d 1021, 1024 (1985). However, the defendant’s 

control of a vehicle containing contraband does not by itself establish constructive possession; the 

State must also prove the defendant’s knowledge of the item. People v. Hampton, 358 Ill. App. 3d 

1029, 1031-33 (2005). In this context, a defendant’s knowledge can be inferred from factors 

including “(1) the visibility of the weapon from defendant’s position in the car, (2) the period of 

time in which the defendant had an opportunity to observe the weapon, (3) any gestures by the 

defendant indicating an effort to retrieve or hide the weapon, and (4) the size of the weapon.” 

People v. Bailey, 333 Ill. App. 3d 888, 891-92 (2002). 

¶ 21 Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for both elements. First, regarding 

control, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient because he did not own the vehicle, 

the State did not introduce fingerprint evidence or other evidence he handled the firearm, and the 

toll receipts did not establish exclusive control of the vehicle. 

¶ 22 The record shows that defendant was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle, and 

Detective Ruzak found the firearm in an open compartment within defendant’s reach. These were 

sufficient facts from which the court could infer control. First, defendant’s status as driver can by 

itself support the inference that he controlled the area where the weapon was found. See McNeely, 
No. 1-18-0528 

- 7 - 

99 Ill. App. 3d at 1024 (fact defendant was the driver, even when he had one passenger, was enough 

to demonstrate immediate and exclusive control of the area where the weapon was found); see also 

People v. Janis, 56 Ill. App. 3d 160, 163-64 (1977) (although defendant did not own a van where 

a weapon was found, his control was established when he was seen in the driver’s seat). 

¶ 23 Second, defendant’s proximity to the firearm also allows for an inference that he controlled

the area where the weapon was found. People v. Ingram, 389 Ill. App. 3d 897 (2009), is instructive. 

In Ingram, the defendant was in the front passenger seat of a vehicle he did not own. Ingram, 389 

Ill. App. 3d at 898. After stopping the vehicle, officers discovered that the front passenger seat was 

broken and leaning on the backseat. Id. The officers recovered a firearm from the floor behind the 

driver’s seat in an area that was accessible to the defendant due to the broken seat. Id. This court 

ruled that an inference the defendant controlled the area where the weapon was found was 

reasonable because the firearm was in a location he could “easily” reach. Id. at 900 (citing People 

v. O’Neal, 35 Ill. App. 3d 89, 91 (1975) (contraband “sufficiently accessible” to a defendant for 

purposes of control if it is within “easy reach”)). Here, defendant was driving and was seated

within arm’s reach of the firearm. The court therefore had multiple bases to reasonably infer 

defendant had control over the area where the firearm was found. 

¶ 24 Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his knowledge of the 

weapon. Initially, we note there is no evidence of the firearm’s size or the time defendant had to 

observe the firearm. However, we find that other evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the 

State, was sufficient to support an inference of knowledge. 

¶ 25 The determinative factor here is whether defendant made “any gestures *** indicating an 

effort to retrieve or hide the weapon.” Bailey, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 892. Detective Ruzak testified 
No. 1-18-0528 

- 8 - 

that he saw defendant making “suspicious” movements with his shoulders immediately after the 

stop. This testimony was sufficient to support an inference of knowledge. 

¶ 26 Helpful on this point is People v. Nesbit, 398 Ill. App. 3d 200 (2010). In Nesbit, two officers 

testified that the defendant driver made hand movements towards the floor of the vehicle following 

a traffic stop. Nesbit, 398 Ill. App. 3d at 204. The officers examined the floor, and found a firearm 

partially concealed by the floorboard, with the handle in plain view. Id. The reviewing court ruled 

that this evidence supported an inference of knowledge, even though the defendant never said the 

firearm was his and did not own the vehicle. Id. at 210-11. 

¶ 27 This case is analogous to Nesbit. Detective Ruzak saw defendant making movements with 

his shoulders. Moments later, Detective Ruzak saw the firearm’s handle in a compartment located 

at shoulder height of defendant’s location in the vehicle. From these facts, the trial court could 

reasonably infer defendant knew the firearm was in the seatbelt compartment. See also People v. 

Grant, 339 Ill. App. 3d 792, 798-99 (2003) (knowledge could be inferred where officers saw the 

defendant make movements towards the passenger seat and then recovered a firearm from that 

seat).

¶ 28 Defendant’s citation to cases holding that furtive movements are by themselves insufficient 

to lend probable cause is misplaced. While furtive movements alone may not provide probable 

cause for a warrantless search, the issue in this appeal is whether evidence of furtive movements, 

taken alongside all the other evidence, was sufficient to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt. As we have explained, gestures such as the ones defendant made here can 

support an inference of knowledge. Additionally, the court was not required to give any weight to 

Detective Ruzak’s concession that defendant could have been listening to music or looking for his 
No. 1-18-0528 

- 9 - 

driver’s license as the officers approached. The trial court, as fact finder, is tasked with drawing 

reasonable inferences, and is “not required to disregard inferences that flow normally from the 

evidence or seek out all possible explanations consistent with innocence and raise those 

explanations to a level of reasonable doubt.” People v. Castillo, 2018 IL App (1st) 153147, ¶ 33. 

¶ 29 The firearm’s visibility also supports an inference of knowledge. Defendant argues that the 

firearm was “concealed,” but Detective Ruzak testified that the handle was visible after he 

illuminated the seatbelt compartment with his flashlight. An item may still be in plain view if it is 

visible with the use of artificial illumination. See People v. Epperley, 33 Ill. App. 3d 886, 888-89 

(1975) (necessity of artificial light does not mean item is not in plain view). Moreover, the fact 

that only the handle was visible does not invalidate the inference because knowledge can be 

inferred even when contraband is only partially visible. See Nesbit, 398 Ill. App. 3d at 210-11 

(inference of knowledge supported where contraband is “protruding” from underneath a seat);

McNeely, 99 Ill. App. 3d at 1024 (inference of knowledge supported where bag containing 

contraband was partially visible from under the vehicle’s seat). This case is thus distinguishable 

from matters where contraband is concealed entirely (Hampton, 358 Ill. App. 3d at 1033) or 

partially concealed, but not necessarily visible from a defendant driver’s position in the vehicle

(People v. Thomas, 2019 IL App (1st) 162791, ¶ 28). Consequently, we find that the trial court 

properly concluded defendant had knowledge of the firearm. 

¶ 30 In sum, the trial court reasonably inferred that defendant had control over the area where 

the firearm was found and knowledge of the firearm’s presence, establishing constructive 

possession. Defendant’s conviction for AUUW is therefore affirmed.

¶ 31 Affirmed.