From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Robertson

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Aug 19, 2003
118 Wn. App. 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)

Summary

noting that "by falsely" claiming ownership of store merchandise, "[appellant] exerted control over the items" "and thus acted in a way that was not authorized by the true rightful owner"

Summary of this case from Price v. U.S.

Opinion

No. 28256-9-II.

August 19, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 01-1-00832-3, Roger A. Bennett, J., entered January 15, 2002.


Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., concurred in by Morgan and Bridgewater, JJ.


Summaries of

State v. Robertson

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Aug 19, 2003
118 Wn. App. 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)

noting that "by falsely" claiming ownership of store merchandise, "[appellant] exerted control over the items" "and thus acted in a way that was not authorized by the true rightful owner"

Summary of this case from Price v. U.S.
Case details for

State v. Robertson

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. TINA MARIE ROBERTSON, Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two

Date published: Aug 19, 2003

Citations

118 Wn. App. 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)
118 Wash. App. 1017

Citing Cases

Price v. U.S.

We need not decide whether the theft was complete the moment appellant removed the polyurethane from the…