Opinion
No. 26869-1-III.
January 27, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 07-1-00785-0, John Hotchkiss, J. Pro. Tem., entered February 6, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Schultheis, C.J., and Korsmo, J.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Following a bench trial, the court convicted Bernabe Navarro Garcia of forgery. The conviction involved a stolen check. He appeals, contending substantial evidence does not support the trial court's finding regarding who had access to the check. Mr. Navarro Garcia further contends sufficient evidence does not exist to support his conviction. We disagree with his contentions, and affirm.
FACTS
Verne Weinert lived alone in a small apartment. He kept his checkbook in a can on his nightstand. On December 14, 2007, Mr. Weinert noticed a check was missing from his checkbook. Two individuals were at his apartment on the day he noticed the check was missing, Mr. Navarro Garcia and Andy Ramos, a homeless friend who often stayed overnight. Mr. Weinert reported the missing check to authorities.
Mr. Weinert's bank showed him a copy of the missing check. It was made out to "Bernebe Navarro" and signed "Verne Weinert." Ex. P1. The signature did not match Mr. Weinert's signature. The back of the check was endorsed with the signature, "Bernabe Navarro." Ex. P1. The owner of Jake's Meats cashed the $85 check. He could not identify the person who presented the check, but described him as a Hispanic male, approximately 5 feet 8 inches tall.
The State charged Mr. Navarro Garcia with forgery. The State offered signature evidence linking Mr. Navarro Garcia's signature with the endorsement on the back of the check. This included evidence that Mr. Navarro Garcia used an accent mark above the "E" in his first name. This accent mark was used in the endorsing signature.
Entering findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court found Mr. Navarro Garcia had access to Mr. Weinert's checkbook and the endorsement was "almost identical to other known signatures of the defendant." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 23. The court also found, "The only other person who had access to Mr. Weinert's check at the time of its disappearance was Andy Ramos. . . . Mr. Ramos is approximately 6'1" tall and weighs approximately 225 lbs." CP at 23 (finding of fact 2.6). Mr. Navarro Garcia was found guilty as charged. He appealed.
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether substantial evidence supports finding of fact 2.6, and if so, whether sufficient evidence supports Mr. Navarro Garcia's conviction. Mr. Navarro Garcia contends the evidence does not support the court's finding that Mr. Ramos was the only other person, besides Mr. Navarro Garcia, who had access to Mr. Weinert's checkbook and that Mr. Ramos was six feet, one inch tall and weighed approximately 225 pounds.
We review a trial court's findings of fact for substantial evidence. State v. Hill, 123 Wn.2d 641, 647, 870 P.2d 313 (1994). "`Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the finding.'" State v. Solomon, 114 Wn. App. 781, 789, 60 P.3d 1215 (2002) (quoting State v. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d 208, 214, 970 P.2d 722 (1999)).
Mr. Weinert testified he kept his checkbook in a can on his nightstand. He testified Mr. Ramos stayed at his apartment often because he was homeless. On the day the check was discovered missing, both Mr. Navarro Garcia and Mr. Ramos were at Mr. Weinert's apartment. Mr. Weinert did not testify that anyone else was at his apartment between the time the check was forged and when it was discovered missing.
This evidence shows Mr. Weinert was careful with his checks and did not leave them in sight. Mr. Navarro Garcia and Mr. Ramos were the only individuals present on the day the check was discovered missing. Taken together, a fair-minded, rational person would be persuaded that, other than Mr. Navarro Garcia, who matched the height description given by the person who cashed the check, Mr. Ramos was the other person who had access to the checkbook.
Further, one of the investigating officers testified that he had seen Mr. Ramos in person and that he was approximately "six foot one or six foot two" and weighed "over 225 pounds." RP at 88. Thus, substantial evidence also supports this portion of finding of fact 2.6.
We now turn to whether the evidence supports Mr. Navarro Garcia's conviction. Mr. Navarro Garcia argues the State presented insufficient evidence to prove that he forged the check or knew the check was forged.
We review an evidence sufficiency challenge by asking whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d 311, 336, 150 P.3d 59 (2006). In determining sufficiency of the evidence, this court considers circumstantial and direct evidence equally reliable. State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874, 83 P.3d 970 (2004).
"A person is guilty of forgery if, with intent to injure or defraud: (a) He falsely makes, completes, or alters a written instrument or; (b) He possesses, utters, offers, disposes of, or puts off as true a written instrument which he knows to be forged." RCW 9A.60.020(1)(a)(b).
Here, Mr. Navarro Garcia had access to the checks. He matched the description of the person cashing the check at Jake's Meats. Mr. Weinert did not give the check to Mr. Navarro Garcia. The front of the check misspelled Mr. Navarro Garcia's name. But the endorsement on the back matches Mr. Navarro Garcia's signature, including an accent mark above the "E" in his first name.
Citing State v. Hescock, 98 Wn. App. 600, 989 P.2d 1251 (1999), Mr. Navarro Garcia argues endorsing a document is not forgery. In Hescock, the defendant signed his name on the back of another individual's payroll check and cashed it. He was found guilty of violating RCW 9A.60.020(1)(a). Division Two of this court held merely signing your name to an instrument does not amount to falsely making, completing or altering a written instrument. Hescock, 98 Wn. App. at 603 (citing RCW 9A.60.020(1)(a)). But Mr. Navarro Garcia's forgery conviction was not limited to subsection (1)(a). Subsection 1(b) entails possessing, offering, or putting off as true a written instrument known to be forged. RCW 9A.60.020. By presenting the falsified check to Jake's Meats for cash, Mr. Navarro Garcia's actions satisfy subsection (1)(b).
Last, Mr. Navarro Garcia contends the State failed to prove he had the necessary intent to commit forgery. A person has "knowledge" when he "has information which would lead a reasonable man in the same situation to believe that facts exist." RCW 9A.08.010(1)(b)(ii). "[A]lthough possession alone is not sufficient to prove guilty knowledge, possession together with slight corroborating evidence of knowledge may be sufficient." State v. Scoby, 117 Wn.2d 55, 61-62, 810 P.2d 1358 (1991). Mr. Navarro Garcia knew Mr. Weinert had no reason to give him an $85 check. This fact combined with his possession of the check is sufficient to show intent to defraud.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence exists to support Mr. Navarro Garcia's forgery conviction.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
SCHULTHEIS, C.J. and KORSMO, J., concur.