Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 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

Barbara J. Simmons

Oldenburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Justin F. Roebel

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Isiah Williams,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 27, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1606-CR-1204

Appeal from the Marion Superior

Court

The Honorable Shannon L. 

Logsdon, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G21-1507-CM-25444

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 2017 Page 2 of 6

Statement of the Case

[1] Isiah Williams appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for carrying a 

handgun without a license, as a Class A misdemeanor. Williams raises one 

issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to 

support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On the afternoon of July 14, 2015, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police 

Department (“IMPD”) Officer Jacqueline Stackman surveilled Bryisha 

Dickerson’s apartment and Dickerson’s vehicle in order to execute a warrant 

that authorized a buccal swab of Dickerson’s boyfriend, Williams. After 

Officer Stackman arrived she requested backup. Approximately thirty-five

minutes later, IMPD Officers Steve Scott, Erik Forestal, and Brian Allen 

arrived at the scene. Officer Stackman then saw Williams and Dickerson exit

Dickerson’s apartment. Williams was using crutches. Dickerson assisted 

Williams into the driver’s seat of her vehicle.

[3] As Williams was entering the vehicle, Officer Scott pulled his vehicle in front of 

it and activated the emergency lights. Officer Scott stated to Williams, “Police, 

show me your hands.” Tr. at 12. At the time, Williams was leaning across the 

driver’s seat and middle console and down into the passenger-side floorboard. 

Id. at 13, 26, 34. According to Officer Scott, Williams appeared to be “either 

reaching for something or putting something away.” Id. at 34. Williams

complied with the officer’s order to show his hands, and the officers secured 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 2017 Page 3 of 6

him. Officers Stackman and Scott then observed a handgun visible on the 

passenger side floorboard.

[4] During a pat down for weapons, Officer Scott asked Williams, “Do you have 

any weapons on you?” Id. at 38. Williams pointed to the handgun on the 

floorboard and stated, “Yes, I have one right there.” Id. at 38, 43. One of the 

IMPD officers arrested and searched Williams and found marijuana in his 

pants pocket. A crime scene specialist later recovered the handgun but found 

no fingerprints on the weapon. 

[5] The State charged Williams with carrying a handgun without a license, as a 

Class A misdemeanor, and possession of marijuana, as a Class B 

misdemeanor.

1 At the bench trial, Dickerson testified that the handgun was 

hers, that she had received it that day as a gift from her friend Roy Cole, and 

that Cole had left the gun in Dickerson’s vehicle. According to Dickerson, Cole 

placed the gun in the car “a pretty good time” prior to when the police arrived, 

but she acknowledged that she had previously claimed under oath that Cole 

placed the gun in the car “a couple of minutes” before police arrived. Id. at 64, 

69. The officers also testified and informed the court that Williams had 

identified the firearm as his at the scene. The court found Williams guilty as 

charged. In support of its judgment, the court stated that it did not find 

 

1

 Williams does not appeal his conviction for possession of marijuana.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 2017 Page 4 of 6

Dickerson to be a credible witness. The court sentenced Williams accordingly, 

and this appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Williams contends that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to support 

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

sufficiency of the evidence claim, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess 

the credibility of the witnesses. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 

(Ind. 2010). We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences 

therefrom that support the conviction, Gorman v. State, 968 N.E.2d 845, 847 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied, and we “consider conflicting evidence most 

favorably to the trial court’s ruling,” Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 346, 352 (Ind. 

2005). We affirm if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn 

from that evidence “could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 925 N.E.2d at 375.

[7] To prove Williams carried a handgun without a license, the State was required 

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams carried a handgun “in any 

vehicle or on or about [his] body without being licensed . . . to carry a 

handgun.” Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1(a) (2015). “To satisfy these elements, the 

State must prove the defendant had either actual or constructive possession of 

the handgun.” Deshazier v. State, 877 N.E.2d 200, 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), 

trans. denied. “A person constructively possesses contraband when the person 

has (1) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2) 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 2017 Page 5 of 6

the intent to maintain dominion and control over it.” Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 

171, 174 (Ind. 2011). 

[8] Both capability to control and intent to control may be inferred from the 

defendant’s possessory interest in the location where the firearm is found, even 

when that possessory interest is not exclusive. Id. However, when the 

possessory interest is not exclusive, 

the State must support th[e] inference [of intent to control the 

item] with additional circumstances pointing to the defendant’s 

knowledge of the presence and the nature of the item. We have 

previously identified some possible examples, including (1) a 

defendant's incriminating statements; (2) a defendant's 

attempting to leave or making furtive gestures; (3) the location of 

contraband like drugs in settings suggesting manufacturing; (4) 

the item's proximity to the defendant; (5) the location of 

contraband within the defendant's plain view; and (6) the 

mingling of contraband with other items the defendant owns. 

Id. at 174-75 (internal citations omitted). This list, however, is not exhaustive. 

Johnson v. State, 59 N.E.3d 1071, 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The ultimate 

inquiry is whether a reasonable fact-finder could conclude from the evidence 

that the defendant knew of the nature and presence of the contraband. Id. 

(citing Gray, 957 N.E.2d at 174-75).

[9] Here, Williams did not have exclusive control over the vehicle in which the 

handgun was located. However, the handgun was in plain view on the 

floorboard of a vehicle solely occupied by Williams. Williams reached toward 

the area where the gun was found as officers arrived. When asked if he had 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1204 | February 27, 2017 Page 6 of 6

weapons, Williams admitted, “Yes, I have one right there” and pointed to the 

firearm, which demonstrated that he had knowledge of the presence and nature 

of the handgun in the car. Tr. at 38, 43. And, while Williams did not own the 

car, he was entering the driver’s seat and had the key to the vehicle. That was 

sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Williams 

constructively possessed the firearm. See, e.g., Grim v. State, 797 N.E.2d 825, 

831 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that the defendant’s “close proximity to the 

handguns, in addition to the fact that one of the handguns was plainly visible 

when the passenger door was open and that there were bullets and ammunition 

in plain view, [was] sufficient circumstantial evidence” to support the 

conviction of carrying a handgun without a license). 

[10] However, Williams contends that the evidence was insufficient because

Dickerson testified that someone else placed the handgun in the car and it is 

possible that Williams may not have been reaching toward the gun but rather

“attempting to position his [injured] body” into the car. Appellant’s Br. at 13.

This contention is simply a request that we reweigh the evidence and reevaluate 

the credibility of Dickerson, which we will not do. See, Jackson, 925 N.E.2d at 

375. We affirm Williams’ conviction. 

[11] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.