Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1608-CR-1747 | February 22, 2017 Page 1 of 5

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

Yvette M. LaPlante

Keating and LaPlante, LLP

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ian McLean

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Brandon Artis,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 22, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

82A05-1608-CR-1747

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Circuit Court

The Honorable Michael J. Cox, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

82C01-1604-F4-2033

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1608-CR-1747 | February 22, 2017 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Brandon Artis (“Artis”) appeals his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a 

Firearm by a Serious Violent Felon, a Level 4 felony.1 He presents the sole 

issue of whether sufficient evidence supports the conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 6, 2016, Evansville Police Department officers were dispatched to a 

residential neighborhood after someone reported suspected drug odors 

emanating from a parked black truck. The caller had also indicated that the 

truck occupants were blaring loud music.

[3] Officers Herbert Adams and Michael Beitler located a truck meeting the caller’s 

description. As the officers approached, two passengers exited and walked 

away from the truck. Officer Beitler attempted to speak to the men, but they 

refused to engage in conversation. They walked to a nearby residence and 

watched the officers from the window.

[4] Officer Adams approached the black vehicle, where he saw Artis sitting in the 

driver’s seat. Artis opened the driver’s side door, and a conversation ensued. 

Artis stated that he and his companions had been listening to music. In 

response to the officer’s questions, Artis replied that the truck was not his and 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1608-CR-1747 | February 22, 2017 Page 3 of 5

that he did not have a driver’s license. He refused permission to search the 

vehicle. 

[5] One of the officers advised Artis that the vehicle was illegally parked, and it 

would probably need to be towed. Artis was told that he could “head off and 

leave the keys.” (Tr. at 49.) Alternatively, the officer suggested that Artis could 

“go in there and find the owner,” who would then be asked to consent to a 

search. (Tr. at 49.) An unidentified woman appeared and offered to allow 

Artis to “leave [the truck] right here.” (Tr. at 51.) However, she also denied 

ownership of the truck.

[6] At some point during the encounter, Officer Beitler saw a Ruger .45 caliber 

pistol under the driver’s seat. He alerted other officers, and Artis was arrested. 

Inside Artis’s right front jacket pocket was a magazine compatible with a Ruger 

.45 caliber pistol.

[7] On June 15, 2016, Artis was brought to trial on a charge of Unlawful 

Possession of a Firearm by a Serious Violent Felon. At the conclusion of the 

first stage of the bifurcated proceedings, a jury found that Artis had possessed a 

firearm. He then admitted that he is a serious violent felon, having previously 

been convicted of armed robbery. The trial court entered judgment and 

sentenced Artis to six years imprisonment. Artis now appeals.

Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1608-CR-1747 | February 22, 2017 Page 4 of 5

[8] Indiana Code Section 35-47-4-5(c) provides: “A serious violent felon who 

knowingly or intentionally possesses a firearm commits unlawful possession of 

a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony.” Artis claims that the 

State failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knowingly or 

intentionally possessed the handgun.

[9] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal 

conviction, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. 

McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). Considering only the 

evidence supporting the verdict and any reasonable inferences to be drawn 

therefrom, we will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value such 

that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[10] The possession of contraband may be characterized as either actual or 

constructive. Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d 833, 835 (Ind. 1999). Actual 

possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over the item and 

constructive possession occurs when someone has the intent and capability to 

maintain dominion and control over the item. Id. Here, the State asserted that 

Artis constructively possessed the handgun found under the driver’s seat where 

he was seated. When constructive possession is asserted, the State must 

demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge of the contraband. Id.

[11] Proof of dominion and control of contraband has been found through such 

means as: (1) incriminating statements made by a defendant, (2) attempted 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1608-CR-1747 | February 22, 2017 Page 5 of 5

flight or furtive gestures, (3) location of substances like drugs in settings that 

suggest manufacturing, (4) proximity of the contraband to the defendant, (5) 

location of the contraband within the defendant’s plain view, and (6) the 

mingling of the contraband with other items owned by the defendant. Id. at 

836.

[12] Here, officers testified to the following circumstances. Artis was sitting in the 

driver’s seat of the black truck as officers approached. A Ruger .45 caliber 

pistol was visible from underneath the driver’s seat of that vehicle. A magazine, 

compatible with a Ruger .45 caliber pistol, was found in Artis’s right front 

jacket pocket. Inside the black truck were items of Artis’s clothing and his 

identification card. Sufficient evidence was presented from which the jury 

could reasonably have concluded that Artis constructively possessed the 

handgun.

Conclusion

[13] Artis’s conviction is supported by sufficient evidence.

[14] Affirmed. 

Najam, J., and May, J., concur.