State v. Royster, C5-97-911
| Decision Date | 04 February 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. C5-97-911,C5-97-911 |
| Citation | 590 N.W.2d 82 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Stanley N. ROYSTER, petitioner, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Both actual and constructive possession of a firearm are included in Minn.Stat. § 609.11, subd. 5 (1998) for purposes of mandatory minimum sentence imposition.
2. The sufficiency of evidence of possession to support the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence for the constructive possession of a firearm during the commission of an enumerated felony is determined by examining all aspects of the firearm in possession to assess whether its presence increased the risk of violence.
William E. McGee, Hennepin County Public Defender, Renee Bergeron, Assistant Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Michael Hatch, Minnesota Attorney General, St. Paul, Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
O P I N I O N
We granted review to consider whether appellant Stanley N. Royster was properly sentenced under the mandatory minimum sentence of three years imprisonment under Minn.Stat. § 609.11, subds. 5, 9 (1998), when he was in possession of a firearm while committing a predicate felony offense. Royster was not actually carrying the firearm when he was arrested for the felony but the firearm was nearby. The trial court held that constructive possession of a firearm is an appropriate component of Minn.Stat. § 609.11, subd. 5 and that Royster had possession because the firearm was within "reasonable proximity" and imposed the mandatory minimum sentence; the court of appeals affirmed. We affirm.
On February 12, 1997, the Minneapolis Police executed a search warrant at Royster's residence at 1176 Fourth Avenue North in Minneapolis, issued on numerous complaints lodged with the police that drugs were being sold out of Royster's residence and on the basis of a controlled narcotics buy at his residence. Police found Royster and another man inside. Items recovered in Royster's search included cash in his pocket and some pre-recorded buy money from the Minneapolis Narcotics Unit. In the premises search, specifically of Royster's bedroom, the police recovered additional pre-recorded buy money, a bag of crack-cocaine in a boot, and a fully-loaded .22 revolver from underneath his mattress located approximately three feet from the boot containing the crack-cocaine. After his arrest Royster admitted to the police that he was selling cocaine out of his home and claimed that his father had given him the revolver for protection because he lived in a dangerous neighborhood. Royster was charged with two counts relating to the sale and possession of a controlled substance, including sale and possession of a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.11, subd. 5.
Royster waived a jury trial and the matter was submitted to the court on stipulated facts. The trial court found Royster guilty of third- and fifth-degree controlled substance crimes while in possession of a firearm, both of which are predicate offenses under Minn.Stat. § 609.11, subd. 9 requiring a mandatory minimum sentence of three years. 1 In the first step of its analysis, the trial court considered whether the words "had possession" were intended by the legislature to include constructive as well as actual possession. The district court held that "possession" included constructive possession by focusing on the notable absence of the word "actual" from the statute. In doing so however, the district court rejected the notion that mere ownership of a firearm triggers application of the statute and turned to a test of "reasonable proximity" articulated by this court in State v. Johnson, 2 to establish the limits of constructive possession. The district court held that a firearm is in reasonable proximity when it is "sufficiently near to the drugs, so that the defendant has immediate access to it." It concluded that Royster had possession of the firearm because it was his, the drugs were found only a few feet from the firearm permitting immediate access to it and the drugs at the same time, and the firearm and drugs were in reasonable proximity to each other. The court of appeals affirmed the district court in a split decision holding that Royster could be convicted for constructively possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony because the firearm was in close proximity to the contraband and it was fully loaded and ready for use.
Statutory construction presents a legal question for de novo review. 3
It is undisputed that Royster committed the predicate offense listed in section 609.11, subd. 9, so our only concern is whether the statute includes both constructive and actual possession of a firearm, and if the statute includes constructive possession what should be the nature of the possession required to trigger the mandatory minimum sentence. 4 Based on the evolution of section 609.11, subdivisions 4 and 5, we conclude that constructive possession is a component of the mandatory minimum sentence statute.
When Minnesota Statute § 609.11, subd. 5, was enacted in 1981, it originally provided in relevant part:
Subd. 5. Firearm. Any defendant convicted of an offense listed in subdivision 9 in which the defendant or an accomplice, at the time of the offense, used, whether by brandishing, displaying, threatening with, or otherwise employing, a firearm, shall be committed to the commissioner of corrections for a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment not less than three years, nor more than the maximum sentence provided by law. 5
But parallel to subdivision 5 pertaining to a firearm "used" during the commission of the predicate offense was subdivision 4 pertaining to commission of a predicate offense while "in possession of a firearm." Subdivision 4 mandated a minimum sentence of one year and provided:
Subd. 4. Dangerous Weapon. Any defendant convicted of an offense listed in subdivision 9 in which the defendant or an accomplice, at the time of the offense * * * had in possession a firearm, shall be committed to the commissioner of corrections for a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of not less than one year plus one day, nor more than the maximum sentence provided by law. 6
Thus, prior to 1994, a defendant who "possessed" a firearm while committing a predicate offense faced a mandatory minimum sentence of one year plus one day under subdivision 4, while a defendant who "used" a firearm "by brandishing, displaying, threatening with, or otherwise employing [it]" faced a mandatory minimum sentence of three years under subdivision 5.
In 1994 the Minnesota Legislature amended subdivisions 4 and 5, by striking the words "had in possession" from subdivision 4 and inserting them into subdivision 5. 7 Subdivision 5 now reads, in relevant part:
Subd. 5. Firearm. * * * [A]ny defendant convicted of an offense listed in subdivision 9 in which the defendant or an accomplice, at the time of the offense, had in possession or used, whether by brandishing, displaying, threatening with, or otherwise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sparks
...of chapter 152." Minn. Stat. § 609.11, subd. 9 (2016). Appellant moved to dismiss the charged sentencing enhancement under State v. Royster, 590 N.W.2d 82 (Minn. 1999), arguing that the state had not shown probable cause to believe that she possessed or used a firearm at the time of the off......
-
State v. Williams, No. A04-1586 (MN 11/1/2005)
...by law. For purposes of this statute, the term "had in possession" includes both actual and constructive possession. State v. Royster, 590 N.W.2d 82, 83-84 (Minn. 1999). An individual has constructive possession of a firearm if that person consciously exercises dominion and control over it.......
-
State v. Fuller
...For purposes of that subdivision, the term "had in possession" includes both actual and constructive possession. State v. Royster, 590 N.W.2d 82, 83-84 (Minn. 1999). In Royster, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that where there is constructive possession of a firearm, the state had to......
-
State v. Ahrendt, No. C2-02-1997 (Minn. App. 11/10/2003)
...phrase "had in possession" in the statute has been interpreted to include actual as well as constructive possession. State v. Royster, 590 N.W.2d 82, 84-85 (Minn. 1999). A person "has constructive possession of a firearm if he consciously exercises dominion and control over it." Salcido-Per......