Opinion ID: 1886354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Redding and Barnett

Text: Maddrey argues that his case is distinguishable from Mack, Lewis and Kornbluth because the handguns in his case were located in a locked safe for which no key was found. Maddrey relies on our decisions in Redding v. State [34] and Barnett v. State [35] to support this distinction. In Redding, the defendant stole a locked safe box during a burglary. [36] He knew there was a gun inside the safe box. [37] While the defendant was fleeing from the burglarized residence, he broke open the safe box and used the gun to steal a bicycle. [38] Although the issue we addressed in that case was whether the burglary was still in progress when the defendant used the gun to steal the bicycle, we noted that the gun was not readily available to [the defendant] while effectuating the burglary. [39] Thus, the gun became available only when the defendant opened the safe box during his immediate flight from the burglary. [40] This passing reference to availability would seem to support Maddrey's argument; however, we conclude that Barnett more directly addresses the issue of availability and controls in this case. Our decision in Barnett, which directly addressed the issue of availability, indicates that the fact that a firearm is kept in a locked container is just one of many factors to be considered in a PFDCF case, when applying the accessibility test. [41] In that case, the defendant lived in an apartment with his stepmother and shared a bedroom with her two minor sons. [42] Upon searching the apartment, police officers found drug paraphernalia in a locked safe in the bedroom closet and a firearm in a locked strongbox in a hallway linen closet. [43] The police did not find a key to the strongbox. [44] In Barnett, after reviewing our previous decisions, including Mack, Lewis, Kornbluth, and Gardner, we explained that the facts were more similar to Gardner, where the gun was not found at the locus of the drug activity, than to Kornbluth and Lewis. [45] We noted that the apartment belonged to the defendant's stepmother and no drugs were found there at all. [46] We also noted that the firearm was found inside a locked stongbox in a hallway linen closet, rather than in the defendant's bedroom. [47] Based on all of these factors, we held that [t]he record evidence does not support a finding that the firearm ... was available and accessible to [the defendant] during the commission of any felonious drug activity. [48] Our decision did not turn on the single fact that the gun was locked in a strongbox.