Sufficiency of the evidence for a felony-firearm conviction; Possession during the commission of the underlying offense; Constructive possession; Departure sentences; People v Steanhouse; Correction of the judgment of sentence (JOS)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence that defendant constructively possessed a gun during the commission of third-degree fleeing and eluding to support his felony-firearm conviction related to that offense. It also held that his departure sentences for his fleeing-and-eluding and felonious-assault convictions were within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. Thus, it affirmed his convictions and sentences. But it remanded for the ministerial correction of his JOS to remove a mistaken additional count. The court concluded that, assuming without deciding that his actual possession of the gun “shortly after exiting the vehicle was not enough to establish that he possessed [it] during the commission of third-degree fleeing and eluding,” sufficient circumstantial evidence existed “for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant constructively possessed [it] while driving the vehicle, i.e., while committing third-degree fleeing and eluding.” Although the prosecution offered “no direct evidence that he possessed the gun while driving the vehicle[,]” the evidence established that he actually possessed it “almost immediately after exiting the vehicle. From this evidence, a rational trier of fact could infer that, while defendant was driving the vehicle, he knew where the firearm was, had reasonable access to it, and had control over it. That would logically explain why [he] almost immediately possessed [it] upon exiting the vehicle.” As to sentencing, the trial court imposed an 11-month departure sentence for fleeing and eluding and a 9-month departure for felonious assault. It “found it significant that defendant continued engaging in criminality despite having support from his family, and that he continued committing similar crimes despite getting caught in the past.” In addition, it “found it highly significant that [he] had not shown any growth from his previous run-ins with the law[.]” Further, it “expressly recognized the extent that those sentences departed from the” guidelines. The court determined that the sentences accurately reflected “the seriousness of the offense and defendant’s background.”