Sufficiency of the evidence for a FIP conviction; People v Burgenmeyer; Appearing in court wearing leg shackles; Double jeopardy; Convictions of FIP & felony-firearm; People v Mitchell; People v Calloway; People v Dillard; Sentencing; Proportionality

The court held that the jury “reasonably concluded that defendant possessed the seized handgun based on legally sufficient evidence.” He also failed to show “any level of prejudice that would justify a finding of plain error with respect to the exposure of his shackles.” Further, the Supreme Court in Mitchell and Calloway and the court in Dillard decided (and rejected) defendant’s issue as to double jeopardy and his convictions for both FIP and felony-firearm. Finally, the court could not conclude that he “demonstrated that his sentence is unreasonable or disproportionate in relation to the circumstances surrounding both the offense and the offender.” He contended “that the evidence presented raises reasonable doubt regarding his possession of a firearm based on his testimony that the gun featured in the music video in question was, in fact, a nonfunctional prop.” He further pointed “out that he provided a receipt for the rental of an imitation gun. However, he also acknowledged that the invoice was dated after the creation of the video and that the receipt was issued following police contact. A police officer testified to discovering a closed business under a different name at the address indicated on the invoice, and the purported owner of the prop company declined to participate in an interview, thus raising a question of fact whether the gun was real or a prop.” But the jury rejected defendant’s claim “that the gun was a prop. The question then arises as to whether there was sufficient evidence presented in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the firearm in the video was an actual gun rather than a nonfunctional prop.” In his appeal, defendant asserted “there was no direct testimony linking him to the firearm found at the home and presented at trial as evidence of the gun [he] used in the video. However, law enforcement obtained defendant’s address from the Secretary of State and subsequently searched the residence, during which a handgun was discovered concealed beneath a mattress in the bedroom, alongside a sweatshirt identical to the one worn by defendant in the video. An officer compared the firearm in the video with the one retrieved during the search and noted that they matched in size, shape, and color, and shared identical features such as an accessory rail and visible wear marks, in addition to an activated loaded-chamber indicator. At trial, defendant acknowledged these similarities. Based on the evidence of [his] appearance in a music video while brandishing a handgun, which closely resembled the weapon found at [his] residence, along with the matching clothing,” the court determined “it was reasonable for the jury to infer that defendant possessed the handgun. Moreover, the” gun was discovered in what appeared to be his bedroom. “A defendant has constructive possession of a firearm if the location of the weapon is known and it is reasonably accessible to the defendant,” as articulated in Burgenmeyer. Affirmed.