Opinion ID: 1886354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: PDWPP Evidence Sufficient

Text: Maddrey uses the same accessibility arguments to support his contention that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of PDWPP pursuant to title 11, section 1448. [53] Even if we had concluded that the evidence in this case was insufficient to support Maddrey's conviction for PFDCF, that conclusion would not control the outcome of his conviction for PDWPP. Although we noted in Barnett that [t]he term possession, as it is used in both section 1447A and section 1448, means physically available and accessible to the defendant, [54] we recognized in Miller v. State that the critical distinction between the two crimes is that physical availability during the commission of a felony is not required to establish a section 1448 violation. [55] Unlike section 1447A, section 1448(a) makes it a crime for a prohibited person to possess a weapon or ammunition at any time. Therefore, under section 1448(a), the State need only prove that a defendant possessed or controlled a weapon at some point, not necessarily at the time of his arrest. [56] Where, as here, the handguns were recovered from a locked safe in the defendant's bedroom, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer that the handguns were available and accessible to Maddrey, regardless of whether they were available and accessible during the commission of his continuing drug felonies. [57]