From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Harris

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Nov 23, 2004
124 Wn. App. 1023 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)

Opinion

No. 31267-1-II

November 23, 2004 UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from Superior Court of Pierce County. Docket No. 03-1-05140-5. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 12/18/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Sergio Armijo.

Counsel for Appellant(s), Sheri Lynn Arnold, Attorney at Law, PO Box 7718, Tacoma, WA 98406-0718.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Donna Yumiko Masumoto, Attorney at Law, Pierce Co Prosc Atty Ofc, 930 Tacoma Ave S, Tacoma, WA 98402-2171.


Stuart Jeffrey Harris, Jr., appeals his conviction for first degree escape under RCW 9A.76.110(1). He argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and (2) the trial court failed to enter its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law under CrR 6.1(d). Because the trial court has since entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, we do not address the second issue.

Holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the escape conviction, we affirm.

FACTS I. Escape

On August 21, 2003, the Pierce County Superior Court sentenced Stuart Jeffrey Harris, Jr., to four months jail time for a first degree possession of stolen property conviction. The trial court gave Harris credit for 48 days served and allowed him to serve the remaining time on the Pierce County Superior Court Work Crew.

On August 26, 2003, Harris received a work crew orientation from the program supervisor, Shane Gray. The orientation included the work crew program's written rules, including consequences should he fail to comply, which Harris signed. Gray also gave Harris his work crew schedule, which Harris initialed to show he understood the schedule.

Harris reported for his first day of work, August 30, 2003. He failed to report the following day. He showed up for the next four shifts, had an excused absence for the following two shifts, then failed to report without excuse on September 27 and September 28, 2003.

On October 2, 2003, Gray saw Harris at a grocery store and reminded him that if he failed to report for his next work crew, the court would receive notice of his non-compliance. Harris told Gray he would report for work, but he failed to do so. Gray submitted a report to the Prosecutor's Office, with a copy to the court, and requested a bench warrant for Harris' arrest. Harris was arrested November 3, 2003.

II. Procedure

The State charged Harris with first degree escape. Sitting without a jury, the trial court convicted him as charged; the trial court did not enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court sentenced Harris to 15 months of confinement.

Contrary to RCW 9A.76.110(1).

Harris appealed. In his Brief of Appellant, Harris requested a remand to the trial court for entry of its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A few weeks later, the trial court entered its findings and conclusions, which are now part of the record on appeal.

ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review

When reviewing an evidentiary challenge, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. We give deference to `the trier of fact who resolves conflicting testimony, evaluates the credibility of witnesses and generally weighs the persuasiveness of evidence.' Direct and circumstantial evidence are equally reliable. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980).

State v. Rempel, 114 Wn.2d 77, 82, 785 P.2d 1134 (1990); State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).

State v. Walton, 64 Wn. App. 410, 415-16, 824 P.2d 533, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1011 (1992).

In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant admits the truth of the State's evidence. We interpret all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in favor of the State.

State v. Ward, 148 Wn.2d 803, 815, 64 P.3d 640 (2003).

II. Elements of Escape

The State bears the burden of proving each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. To convict Harris under RCW 9A.76.110, the State had to prove that Harris (1) was being detained for a felony conviction; (2) escaped from custody between September 27, 2003 and October 5, 2003; and (3) knew that by failing to report for work crew, he was leaving confinement or custody without permission. See State v. Descoteaux, 94 Wn.2d 31, 35, 614 P.2d 179 (1980). Here, the State has met that burden in proving that Harris committed first degree escape.

First, Harris was serving a sentence for felony possession of stolen property. Second, without permission, he stopped reporting for work crew. Failure to report for work crew, assigned in lieu of confinement for a conviction, constitutes an escape from custody. Under RCW 9A.76.110(1), `A person is guilty of escape in the first degree if he or she knowingly escapes from custody or a detention facility while being detained pursuant to a conviction of a felony or an equivalent juvenile offense.' Work Crew service qualifies as `custody' under RCW 9A.76.010(1). The third element, which Harris challenges here, is whether he acted with the requisite knowledge that his actions amounted to escape from custody.

RCW 9A.76.010(1):

`Custody' means restraint pursuant to a lawful arrest or an order of a court, or any period of service on a work crew: PROVIDED, That custody pursuant to chapter 13.34 RCW and RCW 74.13.020 and 74.13.031 and chapter 13.32A RCW shall not be deemed custody for purposes of this chapter.

Under section A(2) of the Pierce County District Court Work Crew Orientation, `[w]ritten verification of all excused absences is required. Excused absences are mainly limited to appropriate court related matters. Any absence or late arrival can be cause for termination.' Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. Directly above Harris' signature, the document reads:

I have (read) or (had read to me) and understand the rules and regulations listed above and agree to comply. I further understand that there will be other general expectations and work instructions by the crew chiefs which I must follow.

I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WORK CREW IS IN LIEU OF JAIL TIME. FAILURE TO REPORT FOR WORK CREW WILL RESULT IN AN IMMEDIATE WARRANT FOR MY ARREST.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.

This document, which Harris signed, warned that if he failed to report for work crew, the court would issue an arrest warrant. Harris followed the work crew rules initially, obtaining written excuses for two absences. The trial court could reasonably infer from these early acts of compliance that Harris had understood the reporting rules set forth in the orientation documents. The next question is whether he knew that an unexcused absence would be an escape from custody.

Harris argues that he was unaware his unexcused absences from work crew amounted to leaving or escape from confinement. The record, however, shows that Harris did have this knowledge. Gray testified he had informed Harris at orientation that if Harris failed to comply with the work crew rules, he would risk an escape charge. Harris argues that Gray's testimony was vague and unpersuasive. But it was for the trial court, not us, to assess Gray's credibility and the weight to give his testimony. See State v. Walton, 64 Wn. App. 410, 415-16, 824 P.2d 533, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1011 (1992). Furthermore, it was reasonable for the trial court to infer from Gray's testimony that Harris had the requisite knowledge that he could be charged with escape if he failed to report to work crew.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we hold the evidence is sufficient to support Harris' conviction for first degree escape.

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, P.J., BRIDGEWATER, J., Concur.


Summaries of

State v. Harris

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Nov 23, 2004
124 Wn. App. 1023 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)
Case details for

State v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. STUART JEFFREY HARRIS, JR., Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two

Date published: Nov 23, 2004

Citations

124 Wn. App. 1023 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)
124 Wash. App. 1023