PEOPLE OF MI V CHAUNCEY RAMONE KINCADE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 23, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 283157
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 07-011180-FH
CHAUNCEY RAMONE KINCADE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murphy and M. J. Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Chauncey Ramone Kincade appeals as of right his convictions by a jury of
possession of marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(d), felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f,
and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), second offense,
MCL 750.227b. The trial court sentenced defendant to time served for his possession of
marijuana conviction, to 18 months to five years’ imprisonment for his felon in possession of a
firearm conviction, and to five years’ imprisonment for his conviction of felony-firearm. The
trial court also ordered defendant to serve his sentence for felony-firearm consecutive to his
sentence for being a felon-in-possession. On appeal, defendant’s sole claim of error is that there
was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Because we conclude that there was
sufficient evidence, we affirm.
“A claim of insufficient evidence is reviewed de novo, in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, to determine whether the evidence would justify a rational jury's finding that the
defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600, 622;
709 NW2d 595 (2005).
To convict a defendant of possession of marijuana, the prosecution must prove the
following three elements: 1) the recovered substance is marijuana, 2) defendant was not
authorized to possess the marijuana, and 3) defendant knowingly possessed the substance. MCL
333.7403(2)(d); see also People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 516-517; 489 NW2d 748 (1992),
amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). “A person need not have actual physical possession of a
controlled substance to be guilty of possessing it. Possession may be either actual or
constructive.” Wolfe, supra at 519-520. A defendant has constructive possession of a controlled
substance when he has “dominion or control over the controlled substance.” People v Konrad,
449 Mich 263, 271; 536 NW2d 517 (1995).
-1-
The evidence established that defendant possessed the keys to the building where the
marijuana was found. In addition, police conducted a successful controlled buy at the location
just days before the police raid. Though there is no indication in the record that the money used
in the controlled buy was found on defendant, testimony established defendant possessed a
significant amount of money that was comprised of mostly small bills. A police officer testified
that the packaged drugs found were normally sold for $10 per bag. Defendant was the only
person in the back room, standing approximately two feet away from the drugs, along with a
scale and handgun, at the time of the raid leading to his arrest. The contraband was all in plain
view. Based on this evidence, a rational juror could conclude defendant possessed the
marijuana. See, e.g., Wolfe, supra at 512, 525.
There was also sufficient evidence to establish the firearm charges. “The elements of
felony-firearm are that the defendant possessed a firearm during the commission of, or the
attempt to commit, a felony.” People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 505; 597 NW2d 864 (1999).
The elements of felon in possession of a firearm are: (1) the defendant possessed a firearm, (2)
the defendant had been convicted of a prior felony, and (3) the defendant’s right to possess a
firearm had not yet been restored. MCL 750.224f; People v Perkins, 262 Mich App 267, 270;
686 NW2d 237 (2004). On appeal, defendant only challenges the evidence of possession. “[A]
defendant has constructive possession of a firearm if the location of the weapon is known and it
is reasonably accessible to the defendant. Physical possession is not necessary as long as the
defendant has constructive possession.” People v Burgenmeyer, 461 Mich 431, 438; 606 NW2d
645 (2000).
As discussed previously, defendant was in control of the building where the firearm was
found. The record further established that the firearm was lying on the counter in plain view
next to the marijuana in the small back room where defendant was found. Officer Reed testified
that defendant was only 2 to 2-1/2 feet from the firearm and defendant was the only person in the
back room. Based on this circumstantial evidence, a rational trier of fact could conclude
defendant had constructive possession of the firearm because it was accessible and known to
defendant. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.