Opinion
No. 23015-5-III
Filed: May 3, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Grant County. Docket No: 04-1-00026-5. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 05/18/2004. Judge signing: Hon. John Michael Antosz.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Paul J. II Wasson, Attorney at Law, 2521 W Longfellow Ave, Spokane, WA 99205-1548.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Teresa Jeanne Chen, Grant County Prosecutors Office, PO Box 37, Ephrata, WA 98823-0037.
Stephen Phillip Scott, Attorney at Law, Grant Pros Attorney, PO Box 37, Ephrata, WA 98823-0037.
Paul Holland was convicted in a bench trial of three counts of possession of a controlled substance and three counts of conspiracy to deliver. On appeal, he asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for possession of a controlled substance. We affirm Mr. Holland's convictions.
FACTS
The Ephrata Medical Center is located across the street from the Grant County Jail. Jail inmates are frequently treated at the Medical Center. The Medical Center does not have a restroom located near the waiting room. Instead, the patient restroom is located beyond the medical receptionist's desk, through a set of doors, and down the hallway in the facility itself. Waiting room patients must ask the medical receptionist for permission to use the restroom. A medical receptionist is always present at the desk.
Gary Hutt was an inmate at the Grant County Jail. In early November 2003, Mr. Hutt masterminded a plan to smuggle contraband, consisting of methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana, into the jail through the Medical Center. An outside accomplice would place the contraband in the patient restroom in the toilet tank. A prisoner would fake an injury in order to be treated at the Medical Center. While at the Medical Center, the prisoner would use the restroom, locate the contraband, and transport it back to the jail. Mr. Hutt's primary outside accomplice was his wife, Myra Buche.
Mr. Hutt recruited another inmate, Walter McIlwain, to assist him with his plan. He asked Mr. McIlwain to injure himself so that he would require treatment at the Medical Center. Mr. McIlwain testified that Mr. Hutt told him that Paul Holland would place the drugs in a toilet tank. Mr. Holland was a close friend of Mr. Hutt.
On November 5, the injured Mr. McIlwain was transported to the Medical Center for treatment. Despite his best efforts, he did not locate any drugs in the Medical Center's restroom. When he returned to the jail, he told Mr. Hutt that he was unsuccessful. Mr. Hutt appeared upset. Later, Mr. Hutt contacted his wife.
On November 6, Mr. Holland entered the Medical Center and approached the medical receptionist, Dayna Davis. Mr. Holland was not a patient at the Medical Center. He provided Ms. Davis with a false name. He asked if the Medical Center took medical coupons. Ms. Davis stated that medical coverage depended upon his medical program. Mr. Holland stated that he did not know his medical program. Ms. Davis told him that if he provided his social security number and date of birth she could find his program on the State's Envoy system.
Mr. Holland asked to use the restroom. Ms. Davis gave him permission but asked him to state his social security number and date of birth so that she could research his program. Mr. Holland wrote down a false social security number and a false birth date. Ms. Davis became suspicious when she noted that Mr. Holland had stated that he was born in 2003. When Mr. Holland exited the restroom, she again asked him for his social security number and date of birth. Mr. Holland did not respond and left the building.
Mr. McIlwain injured himself again and returned to the Medical Center. However, he was not allowed to enter the restroom alone. Later that afternoon, contraband was discovered in the patient restroom. Inside the toilet tank, patients and staff discovered three balloons and a plastic glove. Officer Ryan Green of the Ephrata Police Department took possession of the items. The three balloons contained methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana.
Officer Green and Detective John Phillips made a decoy of the contraband. The decoy was planted in the toilet tank.
Mr. Hutt chose inmate Charles Wimer to return to the Medical Center the third time. Mr. Wimer testified that Mr. Hutt told him that Mr. Holland would place the contraband in the toilet tank. Mr. Wimer injured himself and was transported to the Medical Center. Mr. Wimer found the decoy and transported it back to the jail.
A search warrant was obtained for Ms. Buche's residence. In Ms. Buche's purse, officers found a note pad containing Mr. Holland's name, driver's license, and social security number.
Detective Brian Jones interviewed Mr. Holland. Mr. Holland stated that he was at the Medical Center in November 2003, either to have some dental work completed or to check on his coverage. He stated that he had provided the receptionist at the Medical Center with a false name and false date of birth. He stated that his fingerprints might be found on the toilet tank because he had used the patient restroom. According to Mr. Holland, he had removed the lid in order to determine why the toilet was not functioning properly.
Mr. Holland was charged with possession of methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana as well as conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. The charges were amended to include conspiracy to deliver cocaine and marijuana. He was convicted in a bench trial of all six counts.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Holland contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for possession of a controlled substance. In short, Mr. Holland asserts that the evidence was insufficient because of the passage of time between his presence at the clinic and the discovery of the contraband.
Standard of Review. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Hepton, 113 Wn. App. 673, 681, 54 P.3d 233 (2002). Circumstantial and direct evidence are equally reliable. State v. McNeal, 98 Wn. App. 585, 592, 991 P.2d 649 (1999), aff'd, 145 Wn.2d 352, 37 P.3d 280 (2002). All reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly against the defendant. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).
Possession of Contraband. It is unlawful to possess a controlled substance.
RCW 69.50.401(1). The State must establish (1) `the nature of the substance,' and (2) `the fact of possession by the defendant.' State v. Staley, 123 Wn.2d 794, 798, 872 P.2d 502 (1994).
Mr. Holland challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that shows that he was in possession of a controlled substance. Initially, we note that the State produced sufficient evidence to show that the substances were methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana. Additionally, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to show that Mr. Holland possessed those substances.
First, Mr. Holland was a close friend of Mr. Hutt. Accordingly, a direct connection between Mr. Holland and the inmate masterminding the smuggling operation is established. Second, the timing of Mr. Holland's entry into the Medical Center was suspect. Mr. Hutt contacted his wife, upset because the contraband had not been placed in the Medical Center. The next morning Mr. Holland entered the Medical Center. An inference can be drawn that Mr. Holland entered the Medical Center for illicit reasons. Third, Mr. Holland's behavior at the Medical Center was suspect. He was not a patient. He provided a false name, false date of birth, and false social security number. After visiting the restroom, he immediately left without talking to the receptionist. An inference can be drawn that he entered the Medical Center in order to place contraband in the restroom. Fourth, items connecting Mr. Holland to Ms. Buche were located in Ms. Buche's purse. Fifth, the statements of other inmates provide direct evidence connecting Mr. Holland to the contraband. Specifically, both Mr. McIlwain and Mr. Wimer testified that Mr. Holland would place the contraband in the Medical Center's restroom.
Finally, Mr. Holland's own statements to the police form an evidentiary basis for his convictions. He admitted that he had been present at the Medical Center and he admitted providing false information to the receptionist. He admitted visiting the restroom and he admitted opening the toilet tank. An inference that illegal activity was afoot is established. Legitimate reasons to provide false information to a receptionist, visit a restroom, and leave the Medical Center without either speaking to the receptionist or seeking treatment are unclear. A reasonable finder of fact could have disbelieved Mr. Holland's statement that he opened the toilet tank in order to determine why the toilet was not functioning properly.
Nonetheless, Mr. Holland asserts that the passage of time between his presence at the Medical Center and the discovery of the contraband was insufficient to establish guilt. He asserts that a reasonable doubt is established because someone else could have placed the contraband in the patient restroom after he left. The standard of review is based upon whether there is sufficient evidence to establish guilt. Here, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable finder of fact to determine that Mr. Holland, and no one else, placed the contraband in the toilet tank.
Mr. Holland also asserts that the trial court erred because it failed to enter written findings and conclusions following the bench trial. This assertion is not supported by the record. Written findings and conclusions were entered after Mr. Holland filed his notice of appeal, but before he filed his initial brief. Mr. Holland does not assert that he was prejudiced by the delay in the entry of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. We find no error.
We affirm Mr. Holland's convictions.
The 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.
SWEENEY, A.C.J. and SCHULTHEIS, J., Concur.