Opinion ID: 1983550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Readily Available

Text: In a related argument, Braxton claims that since the government failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he had constructive possession of the pistol, the evidence was also insufficient to prove the armed with or having readily available element of D.C.Code § 22-3202. [14] Relying on Thomas v. United States, 602 A.2d 647 (D.C.1992), Braxton urges us to hold that the phrase readily available in section 22-3202 requires the government to show that he had a closer connection to the pistol than is required to prove constructive possession under D.C.Code § 22-3204(b). In Thomas this court said: Proof that one had possession of a firearm does not necessarily establish that the firearm was readily available.... In short, possession is a broader concept than armed with/readily available. Thus, 3202 requires proof of a fact not required of 3204(b).... Id. at 654 (citations omitted). We also stated that [s]ection 3202 requires proof that the perpetrator exercised a degree of dominion and control not required for a conviction under 3204(b). Id. at 655. Braxton maintains that the government failed to establish that he had this higher degree of control and that the trial court therefore erred in permitting the while armed charges (see notes 1 and 2, supra ) to go to the jury. This court has not yet defined the term readily available, but we have held that it includes an operable pistol lying on top of a television set within [the defendant's] immediate reach. Morton v. United States, 620 A.2d 1338, 1340 (D.C.1993). Although the language in Thomas cited by appellant suggests that constructive possession and readily available are different concepts, they also overlap to some extent because, in order to have a weapon readily available, one must at a minimum have constructive possession of it. We need not now explore the possible distinctions between the two concepts, since Morton compels us to hold that an operable pistol in a dresser drawer, just a few feet away from both appellants as they jointly engaged in a series of drug transactions, meets the definition of readily available. We leave to a future case any attempt to set the outer limits of that definition.