From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. F.F.-M

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Mar 7, 2011
160 Wn. App. 1026 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

No. 65438-1-I.

Filed: March 7, 2011.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 09-8-04178-6, Julia Garratt, J. Pro Tem., entered May 6, 2010.


Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Leach, J., concurred in by Dwyer, C.J., and Cox, J.


F.F.-M. appeals the order of disposition entered following an adjudication of guilt for possessing a stolen vehicle without permission. F.F.-M. contends that the record contains insufficient evidence to support a finding that he knew the vehicle was stolen. Because the record contains sufficient evidence to support this finding, we affirm.

Background

At around 7:00 a.m. on October 7, 2009, Officer Rigoberto Gonzalez responded to a report of a stolen vehicle. Kevin Linford had reported his 1987 Toyota Camry missing early that morning.

Later that morning, Patricia Huerta-Solis called the police to report that her son had left the house with F.F.-M. in a Toyota Camry. Ms. Huerta-Solis reported the license plate number and informed the police that F.F.-M. was driving the car. The car was later identified as the stolen Toyota Camry belonging to Mr. Linford.

A few hours later, Officer John Crane found the stolen Toyota Camry abandoned in the center turn lane of 1100 West Meeker Street in Kent, Washington. Although the steering column was not visibly damaged, stereo equipment had been removed from the vehicle. Items not belonging to Mr. Linford were also found in the car. At around 10:30 a.m., Officer Gonzalez noticed that Officer Crane had located the Toyota Camry and responded to that location.

The next day, Kent police officers went to Ms. Huerta-Solis's son's middle school where F.F.-M. had been seen by school security. F.F.-M. fled from the police, but chasing officers apprehended him. F.F.-M. was arrested, booked, and released to his parents later that day.

Later the same day, Ms. Huerta-Solis again called the police to report having seen F.F.-M. the day before, sitting in the driver's seat of a Nissan Sentra but not driving the vehicle. Eliazar Angulo Cervantes had reported the Nissan stolen from his residence the day before.

The State charged F.F.-M. with two counts of possessing a stolen vehicle. The trial court found him guilty of possessing the Toyota Camry and acquitted him of possessing the Nissan Sentra.

F.F.-M. appeals.

Standard of Review

When reviewing a claim for insufficient evidence, we must determine, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the prosecution's favor and interpret the evidence most strongly against the defendant. Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence.

State v. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d 311, 336, 150 P.3d 59 (2006).

State v. Hosier, 157 Wn.2d 1, 8, 133 P.3d 936 (2006).

State v. Goodman, 150 Wn.2d 774, 781, 83 P.3d 410 (2004).

Analysis

F.F.-M. contends the record contains insufficient evidence of an element of the offense of possessing a stolen vehicle — that he knew the car was stolen. In response, the State argues that the trial judge could properly infer knowledge from the evidence presented at trial.

RCW 9A.56.140(1) defines the crime of possessing stolen property as "knowingly to receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen and to withhold or appropriate the same to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto." A person is guilty of the crime of possessing a stolen vehicle "if he or she possess [possesses] a stolen motor vehicle."

An element of the crime of possession of stolen property is knowledge that the property was wrongfully appropriated. While knowledge may not be presumed because a reasonable person would have knowledge under similar circumstances, it may be inferred. Bare possession of stolen property does not create a presumption that the person knew the property was stolen, but that fact, together with "slight corroborative evidence" of other inculpatory circumstances, will support a conviction. Examples of such corroborative evidence include the absence of a plausible explanation and flight.

State v. Hatch, 4 Wn. App. 691, 693, 483 P.2d 864 (1971).

State v. Womble, 93 Wn. App. 599, 604, 969 P.2d 1097 (1999).

State v. Ford, 33 Wn. App. 788, 790, 658 P.2d 36 (1983) (citing State v. Couet, 71 Wn.2d 773, 775-76, 430 P.2d 974 (1967)).

See Ford, 33 Wn. App. at 790 (no explanation); State v. Ladely, 82 Wn.2d 172, 175, 509 P.2d 658 (1973) (false or improbable explanation); State v. Medley, 11 Wn. App. 491, 495, 524 P.2d 466 (1974) (attempt to escape capture).

F.F.-M. does not challenge any of the trial court's findings of fact. Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal. In this case, the court found that on October 7, 2009, the owner of a 1987 Toyota Camry reported the car missing and that he had not given anyone permission to take it. That same morning, Ms. Huerta-Solis observed her son enter the stolen Camry, which she reported was being driven by F.F.-M. A short time later, police discovered the car in the center turn lane of 1100 West Meeker Street in Kent, Washington, out of gas and missing stereo equipment. That next day, Ms. Huerta-Solis called the police again to report observing F.F.-M. the day before, sitting inside another automobile that was later identified as the stolen Nissan. In addition, when police officers went to Mr. Huerta-Solis's son's middle school where F.F.-M. had been seen by school security, F.F.-M. "fled" from the police, but the chasing officers apprehended him.

State v. Hill, 123 Wn.2d 641, 644, 870 P.2d 313 (1994) (unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal).

In light of these facts, we conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence corroborating F.F.-M.'s knowledge that the car was stolen.

The disposition is affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. F.F.-M

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Mar 7, 2011
160 Wn. App. 1026 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)
Case details for

State v. F.F.-M

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. F.F.-M., Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One

Date published: Mar 7, 2011

Citations

160 Wn. App. 1026 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)
160 Wash. App. 1026