From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Fletty

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Mar 20, 2007
137 Wn. App. 1049 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)

Opinion

No. 34695-8-II.

March 20, 2007.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 06-1-00208-3, Robert L. Harris, J., entered April 13, 2006.

Counsel for Appellant(s), Anne Mowry Cruser, Law Office of Anne Cruser, Vancouver, WA 98666-5000.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Michael C. Kinnie, Attorney at Law, Vancouver, WA 98666-5000.


Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Bridgewater, J.


Michael Weldon Fletty appeals his residential burglary conviction. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support this conviction. We affirm.

FACTS I. Burglary

On January 22, 2006, Michael Weldon Fletty went to the Vancouver, Washington home of Tara Klinschmidt, his ex-wife. Klinschmidt was not home, but her roommate, Patrick McQuade, was present.

McQuade had just gone to bed when he heard a noise in the home. He got out of bed and found Fletty at the bottom of the stairs looking through Klinschmidt's backpack. When McQuade asked Fletty what he was doing, Fletty replied that he was looking for a cigarette. McQuade yelled at Fletty, "[Y]ou don't belong, get out," and Fletty jumped back. As McQuade made his way down the stairs, Fletty left through the front door.

McQuade noticed fresh damage to the front door frame. The door's weather stripping was lying loose on the floor, and there were new pry marks above the door latch. When Klinschmidt came home, McQuade told her what happened and she called 911.

Deputy Erik Swenson of the Clark County Sheriff's Office responded. He observed what appeared to be new damage to the front door. He took photographs, of the damage. He also spoke to Fletty, who stated that he recalled going to Klinschmit's house that day, admitted to the confrontation with McQuade, and said that McQuade had "freaked out."

II. Procedure

The State charged Fletty with residential burglary under RCW 9A.52.025.

At trial, Klinschmidt testified that (1) Fletty never lived at her residence; (2) she had last observed Fletty at her residence on January 7, 2006, when her children let him in and he slept on the couch; and (3) she allowed Fletty to stay that one night, but she told him to leave in the morning.

Klinschmidt further testified that (1) Fletty did not have permission to enter her home or to take any property; (2) on the day of the January 22, 2006 burglary, she had locked the front door behind her when she went to the store with her children; (3) McQuade appeared upset when she got home; (4) she noticed new front door damage and called 911; (5) after checking her purse, she also noticed that some of her keys were missing, including keys to the front, bedroom and closet doors, safe and post office boxes, and her work keys; (6) a digital camera was also missing; and (7) these items have not been returned.

Fletty appeals.

ANALYSIS

Fletty contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove him guilty of residential burglary. In essence, he argues that insufficient evidence shows that he entered or remained unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime once inside. This argument fails.

We review the sufficiency of evidence to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational fact finder could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 220-22, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, we draw all reasonable evidentiary inferences in favor of the State and most strongly against the defendant. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). We defer to the fact finder on credibility determinations and do not review them on appeal. State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 875, 83 P.3d 970 (2004) (citing State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990)). We also defer to the fact finder on issues of conflicting testimony and evidence persuasiveness. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d at 875 (citing State v. Cord, 103 Wn.2d 361, 367, 693 P.2d 81 (1985)).

To prove that Fletty committed the crime of burglary under RCW 9A.52.025, the State had to show that he entered or remained unlawfully in a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein. Fletty argues that he had occasionally stayed the night at Klinschmidt's house and that the State presented no evidence that Klinschmidt had made him aware that he was not to be on the premises. That Fletty previously spent a night at Klinschmidt's residence does not negate the uncontroverted evidence that on the date of the charged burglary he entered her home unlawfully by prying open the door and damaging the door frame in the process, remained unlawfully, and stole her camera and keys.

RCW 9A.52.025. Residential Burglary:

(1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.

Nor was it necessary for the State to prove that Klinschmidt expressly told him that he could not be on the premises at other times. He did not live at her home, he had permission to be there only during the prior over night stay(s), and he had no permission to be there on January 22. Moreover, although acknowledging that she allowed Fletty to spend one night on an earlier occasion, Klinschmidt specifically testified that she did not give him permission to be in her home on other occasions; nor did she give him permission to remove her property from her home.

Drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the State and most strongly against Fletty, we hold that sufficient evidence supports the jury's decision that he committed the charged burglary beyond a reasonable doubt.

Affirmed.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

HOUGHTON, C.J. BRIDGEWATER, J., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Fletty

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Mar 20, 2007
137 Wn. App. 1049 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
Case details for

State v. Fletty

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL WELDON FLETTY, Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two

Date published: Mar 20, 2007

Citations

137 Wn. App. 1049 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
137 Wash. App. 1049