Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1707-CR-1569 | December 19, 2017 Page 1 of 8

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

Timothy J. Burns

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Cleetus Nickson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 19, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A05-1707-CR-1569

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Linda E. Brown, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G10-1701-CM-3276

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1707-CR-1569 | December 19, 2017 Page 2 of 8

[1] Cleetus Nickson appeals his conviction for carrying a handgun without a 

license as a class A misdemeanor. He raises one issue which we revise and 

restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction. We 

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 24, 2017, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Matt Minnis 

observed Nickson driving a vehicle and following the car in front of him very 

closely. Officer Minnis caught up to Nickson’s vehicle, observed that his

license plate had a 2016 sticker, determined that Nickson was speeding, and 

initiated a traffic stop because the plate was showing expired and Nickson was 

speeding. 

[3] As Officer Minnis approached the passenger side, he observed Nickson reach 

around with his right hand to behind the passenger seat and then immediately 

bring it back to his lap area. Officer Minnis pulled his flashlight out and shined 

it through the passenger side, and saw a cloth gun holster in Nickson’s lap. 

Officer Minnis requested back-up and told Nickson why he had pulled him 

over. 

[4] After Officer Angelika Matuszczyk arrived at the scene, Officer Minnis asked 

for Nickson’s license, Nickson gave him his license and a gun permit, and 

Officer Minnis went to his vehicle. Officer Matuszczyk shined her flashlight in 

the back of Nickson’s vehicle, observed a handgun on the floorboard behind the 

passenger’s seat, and asked the passenger to step out of the vehicle. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1707-CR-1569 | December 19, 2017 Page 3 of 8

[5] Officer Minnis performed a BMV check on Nickson which showed that 

Nickson was a valid driver but had a revoked handgun permit. Officer Minnis 

read Nickson his Miranda rights, and he acknowledged that he understood 

them. Officer Minnis informed another officer that the BMV check led him to 

discover that Nickson had a revoked handgun permit, and Nickson said, “Well 

I said the gun permit might have been revoked.” Transcript at 10. 

[6] At some point, Officer Craig Solomon, a firearm liaison, arrived on the scene. 

Officer Solomon read Nickson his Miranda rights, and Nickson stated that he 

understood. Nickson told Officer Solomon that it was his gun, identified it by 

the make and caliber, told him where he purchased it, the purchase price, and 

that he had placed it on the rear floorboard of the car. Nickson also made 

“some mention of a restraining order involving his ex-wife.” Id. at 27. 

[7] On January 25, 2017, the State charged Nickson with carrying a handgun 

without a license as a class A misdemeanor. On June 23, 2017, the court held a 

bench trial. Officers Minnis, Matuszczyk, and Solomon testified. After the 

State rested, Nickson’s counsel moved for an involuntary dismissal and argued 

that the State had not proven that Nickson had carried a handgun knowingly 

without a valid handgun permit, and the court denied the motion. 

[8] Nickson then testified that he did not know that he had the gun in his car, that 

he normally kept the gun on him, and “that’s why my holster was in the car.” 

Id. at 45. He testified that he did not know whether his handgun permit had 

been revoked, he had never received any documentation stating that his 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1707-CR-1569 | December 19, 2017 Page 4 of 8

handgun might be revoked, and that he believed his license was valid. On 

cross-examination, Nickson testified that he received a protective order from his 

ex-wife and that he read that order. He stated that he never told Officer 

Solomon that the gun was his or that he placed it in the car. He also testified 

his protective order expired in 2015, that he thought he could carry after the 

protective order expired, and that he never made the statement that his permit 

might be revoked. When asked if he went through a process to have his gun 

license restored, Nickson answered: “Uh, I didn’t know that I had to.” Id. at 

48. The court found Nickson guilty as charged and sentenced him to 365 days 

with 361 days suspended. 

Discussion

[9] The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Nickson’s conviction 

for carrying a handgun without a license as a class A misdemeanor. When 

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must 

consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the 

verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess 

witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. We consider conflicting 

evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Id. We affirm the conviction 

unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence overcome 

every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. at 147. The evidence is sufficient 

if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1707-CR-1569 | December 19, 2017 Page 5 of 8

[10] At the time of the offense, Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1 provided in 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” and that “[a] 

person who knowingly or intentionally violates this section commits a Class A 

misdemeanor.”

1

 The Indiana Supreme Court has held that, “once the State has 

established that the defendant carried a handgun on or about his person, away 

from his residence or place of business, the burden then shifts to the defendant 

to demonstrate that he possessed a valid license.” Harris v. State, 716 N.E.2d 

406, 412 (Ind. 1999). See also Wilson v. State, 39 N.E.3d 705, 717 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2015) (“Once the State demonstrates that a defendant had possession of a 

handgun on his body or in a vehicle, it then becomes the defendant’s burden to 

demonstrate that he had a valid license to carry the handgun.”) (citing 

Armstrong v. State, 742 N.E.2d 972, 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)), trans. denied. 

Proof that the defendant had a license is an exception to the offense, and the 

burden is on the defendant to prove he possessed a valid license. Harris, 716 

N.E.2d at 411. “Further, Ind. Code § 35-47-2-24 places the burden on the 

defendant to prove he or she has a license or was exempt from the statute.”2 Id.

 

1

Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 221-2017, § 1 (eff. July 1, 2017).

2

Ind. Code § 35-47-2-24 provides:

(a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this 

chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to 

allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on 

the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has 

a license as required under this chapter.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1707-CR-1569 | December 19, 2017 Page 6 of 8

[11] Nickson acknowledges that the gun was found on the floor of the backseat of 

his vehicle and that he identified the gun as belonging to him. He argues that 

he denied knowledge of the gun’s presence in the car and asserts that he 

believed he had a valid permit for the gun. He asserts he provided a “lifetime” 

gun permit to Officer Minnis and that there was insufficient evidence to 

demonstrate that his permit had been revoked. Appellant’s Brief at 8. He 

contends that no certified record was submitted to show a revocation of the 

permit or when such revocation occurred. The State argues that Nickson failed 

to meet his burden to show that he had a valid license at the time he was 

carrying the handgun. It also contends that the evidence established that his

license was revoked and that he was aware it was invalid at the time he carried 

a firearm in his vehicle. 

[12] To the extent Nickson argues that he denied knowledge of the gun’s presence in 

the car, the record reveals that Officer Minnis testified that he observed Nickson 

reach around with his right hand to behind the passenger seat and then 

immediately bring it back to his lap area and that he saw a cloth gun holster in 

Nickson’s lap. Officer Matuszczyk testified that she observed a handgun on the 

floorboard behind the passenger’s seat. Further, Officer Solomon testified that 

Nickson told him that he had placed the gun on the rear floorboard of the car. 

 

(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of 

this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is 

exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of 

this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings 

following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1707-CR-1569 | December 19, 2017 Page 7 of 8

[13] With respect to Nickson’s argument that he believed his gun permit was valid, 

we observe that, when asked what his BMV check showed, Officer Minnis 

answered: “Uh, that he was a valid driver I believe, but that he had a revoked 

handgun permit.” Transcript at 7. When asked to explain the process for 

finding out that he had a revoked handgun permit, Officer Minnis stated:

Uh, when you run someone’s name in our system, if they’ve ever 

had one (1), a handgun permit that is, or had one (1) revoked, it 

will show up; and in this case it showed that he had had one (1) 

originally approved, and that it had been revoked at a later time.

Id. Officer Minnis also testified that he heard Nickson state: “Well I said the 

gun permit might have been revoked.” Id. at 10. On cross-examination, 

Nickson’s counsel stated: “Uh, now you indicated on direct that he had made a 

comment that – oh shit, that’s right it might have got revoked.” Id. at 16. 

Officer Minnis answered: “Correct.” Id. 

[14] Under the circumstances, we conclude that the State presented evidence of a 

probative nature from which a reasonable trier of fact could have determined 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Nickson carried a handgun without a license 

and we cannot say that Nickson met his burden to demonstrate that he 

possessed a valid license.

Conclusion

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Nickson’s conviction.

[16] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1707-CR-1569 | December 19, 2017 Page 8 of 8

Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.