Opinion
No. 54313-0-I
Filed: August 8, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 03-1-02594-8. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 05/07/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Catherine D Shaffer.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Washington Appellate Project, Attorney at Law, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 701, Seattle, WA 98101.
Corey Marika Endo, Federal Public Defender, 1601 5th Ave Ste 700, Seattle, WA 98101-1642.
Princeju Harris — Doc #870699 (Appearing Pro Se).
Counsel for Respondent(s), Alice Degen, King County Prosecutor's Office, 516 3rd Ave Ste W554, Seattle, WA 98104-2362.
Prosecuting Atty King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Princejulian Harris argues that the trial court erred by convicting him of first degree robbery after a nonjury trial without first finding that his threat of force caused the victim to part with her property. But the trial court found that Harris retained the victim's property by the use of force, and there is sufficient evidence to support its finding. There is also sufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the gun Harris displayed was real. We affirm.
I.
Harris and William Yokley approached Angelica Partida in the parking lot of the Southcenter Mall. Partida was friendly, but not interested in a continued conversation. As she was leaving the parking lot, Partida drove her car behind the vehicle Yokley was driving. While stopped at an intersection, Harris got out of the passenger side of the car, ran back to Partida's vehicle, reached in through an open window, and took her purse. Harris returned to Yokley's car and they drove off, with Partida following them.
Eventually, both vehicles stopped at an intersection stoplight. Partida got out of her car and approached Harris on the passenger side of the car in front. She observed that her purse was in Harris's lap, and her cell phone was in the center console area. She demanded that Harris return her purse. Harris responded by pointing a small gun at Partida. Partida, who was upset and angry, demanded that Harris return her purse. Harris then gave Partida her purse back, but kept her cell phone. Partida went directly to the Tukwila Police Station and reported the crime.
Harris was charged with first degree robbery and was tried without a jury. During trial, Harris testified that the gun he displayed was a CO2 compressed water pistol. But the court found that the handgun was real. The court convicted Harris of first degree robbery. Harris moved for reconsideration, arguing that the State did not prove a causal connection between the use of force and the taking or retaining of property. The court denied his motion. The superior court sentenced Harris based on the firearm enhancement.
II.
Harris argues that the State was required to show a causal connection between his use or threat of force and the obtaining or retention of property. He claims that the superior court erred by not making a finding regarding the causal connection and, even if it had, there is insufficient evidence to support such a finding.
To prove robbery, the State must show a causal connection between the defendant's use of fear or force and the obtaining or retention of the victim's property. Robbery is defined by statute as the unlawfully taking of property from another `by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury.' The word `by' indicates a causal connection. Additionally, we have explained that "[a]ny force or threat, no matter how slight, which induces an owner to part with his property is sufficient to sustain a robbery conviction."
RCW 9A.56.190 (emphasis added).
State v. Collinsworth, 90 Wn. App. 546, 553-54, 996 P.2d 905 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Ammlung, 31 Wn. App. 696, 704, 644 P.2d 717 (1982)).
The trial court made a formal finding that Harris's use of force caused Partida to part with her cell phone. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court stated that the retention of the cell phone was `done with force by pointing a handgun at Angelica Partida.' This statement indicates a finding that Harris retained the property by using force.
We reject Harris's contention that the record does not support a finding that Harris's threat of force caused Partida to part with her cell phone. Partida testified that she was not scared when Harris pointed a gun at her. But the fact that Partida said she was not fearful does not mean that it would be unreasonable to conclude that she experienced apprehension by Harris's threat of force. Partida also testified that she did not continue pursuing her cell phone because she could not call the police or do anything else. Partida said that she was angry, upset, in shock, and she was crying on her way to the police station. Officer Lancaster testified that when Partida arrived at the station she was `very clearly upset' and appeared to have been crying. This evidence was sufficient to convince a fair-minded person that Harris's threat of force created apprehension in Partida.
Harris next argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the firearm enhancement because there was no evidence establishing that the gun he displayed was real. He claims that the trial court acted inappropriately by taking judicial notice of the characteristics of small caliber handguns and water pistols.
Sufficient evidence exists when there is enough evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the declared premise. The existence of a firearm can be established through testimony of witnesses even if no weapon is recovered.
Ridgeview Prop. v. Starbuck, 96 Wn.2d 716, 719, 638 P.2d 1231 (1982); Peterson v. Koester, 122 Wn. App. 351, 357, 92 P.3d 780 (2004).
State v. Bowman, 36 Wn. App. 798, 803, 678 P.2d 1273 (1984); State v. Mathe, 35 Wn. App. 572, 581-82, 668 P.2d 599 (1983).
Partida testified that Harris pointed a real gun at her. She described the gun in detail and explained that she had seen guns before at her friends' houses. Harris's mother described a gun that she found under Harris's bed, which matched Partida's description of the gun that Harris used during the robbery. Additionally, when first questioned by the police, Harris admitted that there was a real gun involved, but said that it was Yokley's and that Yokley was the person who pointed it at Partida. At trial, Harris claimed that he lied to police about the gun being real. But the trial court did not find his testimony credible.
We defer to the trial court's determinations regarding witness credibility. State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990).
The court did not take judicial notice of the characteristics of guns, but rather brought its own `opinions, insights, common sense, and everyday life experiences' into the fact-finding process and made reasonable inferences based on the evidence presented. There is sufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the gun was real.
State v. Carlson, 61 Wn. App. 865, 878, 812 P.2d 536 (1991); State v. Briggs, 55 Wn. App. 44, 58, 776 P.2d 1347 (1989).
AFFIRMED.
BAKER, COLEMAN and AGID, JJ., Concur.