Opinion ID: 1886354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prior PFDCF Precedents

Text: In Mack v. State , while searching the defendant's apartment with the defendant present, the police seized a quantity of heroin, certain drug paraphernalia and a loaded automatic revolver. [19] The firearm was found in the defendant's bedroom in a chest of drawers near the dresser in which the drugs and paraphernalia were found. [20] We held that under those facts, the bedroom was the locus of the defendant's continuing drug felony and the revolver's presence there satisfied the accessibility test. [21] Similarly, in Lewis v. State, the police searched the defendant's mobile home and seized evidence of drug trafficking from the bedroom and the kitchen and a loaded shotgun from an unlocked gun cabinet in the living room. [22] We determined that the evidence supported a finding that the locus of the drug activity was the entire mobile home. [23] Thus, the firearm was available during the course of the continuing felony. [24] Likewise, in Kornbluth v. State , while searching the defendant's home without the defendant present, police officers seized twenty-five bags of marijuana, drug paraphernalia and a loaded shotgun. [25] Most of the marijuana was recovered from the living room, as was the shotgun, which was found behind the living room sofa. [26] We concluded that the fact that the defendant was not present in the house when the drugs and weapons were found was not relevant to the accessibility requirement. [27] We also held that because the living room was clearly the locus of the drug activity and both the drugs and firearm were discovered within easy reach of someone sitting on the sofa, the accessibility test was met. [28] In contrast, in Gardner v. State , the defendant was arrested outside of his home for trafficking in cocaine. [29] When the police searched his three-story residence, they found cocaine and drug paraphernalia in the basement and first-floor living room and deadly weapons in a second-floor bedroom. [30] Under those facts, where the gun was found in a different room and on a different floor from the drugs and paraphernalia, we held, as a matter of law, that the evidence did not support a conviction for PDWDCF, because there was no evidence that the deadly weapon was accessible during the commission of the crime. [31] The facts of Maddrey's case are more like Mack, Lewis and Kornbluth than Gardner. Like those cases, and unlike Gardner, the drugs, paraphernalia and firearms were all found in Maddrey's bedroom. No other evidence of drug activity was discovered elsewhere in the house and the evidence supports the logical inference that the bedroom was the locus of Maddrey's drug activity. As we noted in Kornbluth, it is not relevant that Maddrey was not present at the time of the search, as possession with intent to distribute is a continuing felony. [32] Accordingly, the location of the firearms at the locus of the drug activity made the firearms accessible during the commission of the felony. [33]