Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1703-CR-680 | August 16, 2017 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Ernest P. Galos

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Brilan Keith Williams,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 16, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

71A03-1703-CR-680

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court

The Honorable Steven L. 

Hostetler, Judge

The Honorable Keith Doi, 

Magistrate 

Trial Court Cause No.

71D07-1506-CM-2233

Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1703-CR-680 | August 16, 2017 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Following a bench trial, Brilan K. Williams was convicted of Class A 

misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license and Class B misdemeanor 

possession of marijuana. On appeal, Williams argues that the State presented 

insufficient evidence to support his conviction for carrying a handgun without a 

license.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On June 22, 2015, Officer David Johnson of the South Bend Police Department 

was conducting traffic enforcement when he saw a blue Jeep Liberty with no 

front bumper make a right turn without signaling. Officer Johnson activated his 

vehicle’s lights to initiate a traffic stop, and the Jeep sped up and made another 

quick turn without signaling. The Jeep ultimately came to a stop in an alley 

behind a church, and Officer Johnson parked behind it and waited for backup 

to arrive. While he waited, Officer Johnson saw three people inside the Jeep 

and observed the driver of the vehicle and the front-seat passenger, who was 

later identified as Williams, moving around as though they were attempting to 

hide something. 

[4] Within two minutes, Officer Daniel Lawecki arrived to assist Officer Johnson. 

The two officers approached the Jeep, with Officer Lawecki approaching the 

passenger side and Officer Johnson approaching driver side. As the officers 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1703-CR-680 | August 16, 2017 Page 3 of 6

approached, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from inside the 

Jeep. The officers asked Williams and the driver to exit the vehicle. During a 

pat-down search, Officer Johnson felt an object in Williams’s pocket. Officer 

Johnson asked Williams what it was, and Williams responded, “I don’t know, 

go ahead and look.” Transcript at 16. Officer Johnson removed the item, which 

turned out to be a bag of marijuana.

[5] Meanwhile, Officer Lawecki also saw the barrel of a handgun sticking out from 

under the passenger seat where Williams had been sitting. The gun was a 

loaded .40 caliber Smith and Wesson. A subsequent search of the vehicle 

resulted in the discovery of another handgun, a silver revolver, in the pocket on 

the back of the driver’s seat. Officer Johnson determined that Williams did not 

have a license to carry a handgun, and Williams was arrested and advised of his 

Miranda rights.

[6] Officer Neil Graber then arrived to transport Williams to the county jail. 

Williams asked Officer Graber what he was being charged with, and Officer 

Graber informed him of the charges. At that point, Williams told Officer 

Graber that “the Smith and Wesson .40 is mine, I will take it, I’m not a 

convicted felon.” Id. at 57. 

[7] Williams was charged with Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a 

license and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. A bench trial was 

held on October 25, 2016, and Williams was found guilty as charged. Williams 

now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1703-CR-680 | August 16, 2017 Page 4 of 6

Discussion & Decision

[8] Williams argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his 

conviction for carrying a handgun without a license. In reviewing a challenge 

to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the 

credibility of witnesses. Atteberry v. State, 911 N.E.2d 601, 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2009). Instead, we consider only the evidence supporting the conviction and 

the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom. Id. If there is substantial evidence 

of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could have drawn the 

conclusion that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged beyond a 

reasonable doubt, the judgment will not be disturbed. Baumgartner v. State, 891 

N.E.2d 1131, 1137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). It is not necessary that the evidence 

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence is 

sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the 

conviction. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007). 

[9] Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1(a) provides in relevant part that “a person shall not carry 

a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person’s body without being 

licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun.” In order to satisfy these 

elements, the State is required to prove that the defendant had either actual or 

constructive possession of a handgun. Deshazier v. State, 877 N.E.2d 200, 204 

(Ind. Ct App. 2007), trans. denied. It is undisputed that Williams did not have 

actual possession of a handgun. On appeal, Williams argues that the State 

failed to establish his constructive possession of the .40 caliber Smith and 

Wesson.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1703-CR-680 | August 16, 2017 Page 5 of 6

[10] When proceeding on a theory of constructive possession, the State must 

establish that the defendant had both the intent and the capability to maintain 

dominion and control over the handgun. Id. at 205. “We have previously 

noted five types of evidence the State may use to demonstrate constructive 

possession of a handgun: ‘(1) incriminating statements by the defendant; (2) 

attempted flight or furtive gestures; (3) proximity of the firearm to the 

defendant; (4) location of the firearm within the defendant’s plain view; and (5) 

the mingling of a firearm with other items owned by the defendant.’” Id. at 206 

(quoting Causey v. State, 808 N.E.2d 139, 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)).

[11] The Smith and Wesson was located under the passenger seat where Williams 

was sitting, easily within his reach. Additionally, Officer Johnson observed 

Williams and the driver of the vehicle making furtive movements, and 

according to Officer Johnson, it appeared that the men were trying to hide 

something. Perhaps most importantly, Williams told Officer Graber that the 

Smith and Wesson belonged to him. On appeal, Williams claims he falsely 

claimed ownership of the gun in order to protect the other occupants of the 

vehicle, who were convicted felons and consequently prohibited from 

possessing handguns. This argument is simply a request to reweigh the 

evidence, which we will not do on appeal. Moreover, we note that Williams 

claimed ownership of only one of the two handguns found in the car, and he

made specific reference to a “.40 caliber Smith and Wesson”, clearly indicating 

his familiarity with the weapon. Transcript at 56. This evidence was sufficient 

to support Williams’s conviction for carrying a handgun without a license.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1703-CR-680 | August 16, 2017 Page 6 of 6

[12] Judgment affirmed.

[13] Baker, J. and Bailey, J., concur.