If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

December 22, 2022

v No. 359512

Saginaw Circuit Court

ARTHUR DEVONTE WOODS, LC No. 20-047399-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and BORRELLO and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Arthur Devonte Woods appeals as of right his jury-trial convictions of 

possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b(1),

and being a felon in possession of a firearm (felon-in-possession), MCL 750.224f. The trial court 

sentenced defendant as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to serve two years of 

imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction and five years of probation for the felon-inpossession conviction. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant’s convictions arise from an incident that occurred during the early morning of 

July 14, 2020. Detective Patrick Miller and Sergeant Justin Kemerer of the Michigan State Police 

were dispatched to an apartment complex on the basis of reports that a group of five to seven 

people were in the complex parking lot with handguns. Upon arriving at the complex, Detective

Miller and Sergeant Kemerer saw four or five individuals standing near a black SUV that was 

backed into a parking spot. The individuals were all standing near the driver’s side and rear 

driver’s side of the SUV. 

The two officers requested backup. The additional officers entered the complex and 

approached the SUV in marked patrol vehicles; at the same time, Detective Miller and Sergeant 

Kemerer walked to the SUV. According to their testimony, both officers saw defendant walk 

toward the rear-passenger tire of the SUV. Sergeant Kemerer saw defendant reaching toward his 

waistband and sweatshirt pocket; he turned his body away and reached his hands into his 

midsection area. Despite Sergeant Kemerer’s instructions to stop and put his hands up, defendant 
-2-

continued moving to the passenger side of the vehicle, leaned up against the vehicle, and turned 

his body away. Defendant then backed away from the vehicle and surrendered to the officers.

No firearm was found in a search of defendant’s person. However, one of the other 

responding officers saw a handgun on the rear-passenger tire of the SUV; the officer testified that 

the handle of the handgun was facing outward toward the hubcap of the tire “as if somebody had 

set it down there that was holding it.” The gun had no registered owner on file, and there were no 

usable latent fingerprints found on the gun. 

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Defendant argues that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to support a 

finding that he possessed the gun that officers found on top of the rear-passenger tire of the SUV. 

We disagree.1

To convict a defendant of felony-firearm under MCL 750.227b(1), the prosecution must 

prove “that the defendant possessed a firearm during the commission of, or the attempt to commit, 

a felony.” People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 268-269; 893 NW2d 140 (2016) (quotation marks 

and citation omitted). In this case, the felon-in-possession charge, MCL 750.224f, was the 

underlying felony for purposes of the felony-firearm charge. To convict a defendant of felon-inpossession the prosecution must prove that: “(1) the defendant is a felon who possessed a firearm 

(2) before his right to do so was formally restored under MCL 28.424.” Id. at 267-268.

“Michigan courts . . . have recognized that the term ‘possession’ includes both actual and 

constructive possession.” People v Hill, 433 Mich 464, 470; 446 NW2d 140 (1989). 

“Constructive possession exists when the totality of the circumstances indicates a sufficient nexus 

between defendant and the contraband.” People v Johnson, 466 Mich 491, 500; 647 NW2d 480 

(2002). A defendant has constructive possession of a firearm if there is proximity to the article 

together with indicia of control. Hill, 433 Mich at 470. “Possession can be proved by 

circumstantial or direct evidence and is a factual question for the trier of fact.” People v Johnson, 

293 Mich App 79, 83; 808 NW2d 815 (2011). 

 

1 This Court reviews de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v Savage, 327 

Mich App 604, 613; 935 NW2d 69 (2019). “The test for determining the sufficiency of evidence 

in a criminal case is whether the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the people, would 

warrant a reasonable juror in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Nowack, 462 

Mich 392, 399; 614 NW2d 78 (2000). “It is for the trier of fact, not the appellate court, to 

determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and to determine the weight to 

be accorded those inferences.” People v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 428; 646 NW2d 158 (2002). 

Therefore, when a court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, it is “required to 

draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict.” 

Nowack, 462 Mich at 400.
-3-

It is clear that the gun was located near where the officers found defendant. And the

evidence introduced at trial was sufficient for a jury to find that defendant had control over the 

revolver. The police testimony describing defendant’s movement to the rear-passenger side of the 

SUV, reaching toward his waistband and sweatshirt pocket, ignoring the officer’s commands to 

stop, and the discovery of the gun on the rear-passenger tire of the SUV gave rise to reasonable 

inferences that defendant not only knew the location of the gun but had in fact placed it there. See 

People v Barbee, 325 Mich App 1, 13; 923 NW2d 601 (2018). Moreover, Detective Miller and 

Sergeant Kemerer did not notice anyone other than defendant near the rear-passenger tire of the 

SUV, and the vehicle did not move while the officers were observing it.

Defendant notes that no fingerprints were developed from the gun and that it was not

submitted for DNA analysis, but circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from 

that evidence can be sufficient for a jury to convict. See People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 

614 NW2d 78 (2000). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there 

was sufficient evidence to permit the reasonable inference that defendant constructively possessed 

the firearm.

Affirmed.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro 

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello 

/s/ Christopher P. Yates