Opinion
No. 20296-8-III c\w 20280-1-III
Filed: May 9, 2002 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County, No. 011006241, Hon. Tari S. Eitzen, June 21, 2001, Judgment or order under review.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Janet G. Gemberling, Attorney At Law, 1314 S Grand Blvd Ste 2, Spokane, WA 99202.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Kevin M. Korsmo, Spokane County Prosecutor's Office, W. 1100 Mallon, Spokane, WA 99260.
Joshua E. Sellers and Erik E. Sailor were found guilty of second degree burglary following a break-in at Esmeralda Golf Course. They now appeal, arguing insufficient evidence exists to support their convictions. We affirm.
FACTS
Officer Kristopher Honaker, another officer, and a canine responded to an alarm at Esmeralda Golf Course. They found a small building attached to the pro shop had been broken into and the contents disturbed. The building was used as a walk-in cooler for beer and wine.
There were several inches of snow on the ground and approximately a half-inch of new snow. The officers noticed two sets of footprints leaving the building and leading toward the 18th fairway. One set had a distinctive pattern. The canine led the officers across the 18th green into a small wooded area. There, they found a baseball hat and three 12-packs of beer.
The beer did not have snow on it even though it was snowing, leading Officer Honaker to believe it was taken from the cooler.
The canine continued to lead the officers. At times, there were several sets of footprints, but the canine was able to track the footprints with the distinctive pattern. They arrived at a nearby parks department building. The officers located Mr. Sellers and Mr. Sailor lying under a blanket outside the building. Their pants and shirts were wet and they appeared to be sweating. A backup officer testified the men appeared to be "wrung out" and "in a state of alarm." Report of Proceedings at 103. Between the men was a 12-pack of Kokanee beer with two opened bottles. The officers found this same brand of beer in the cooler and by the 18th green.
The tracks with the distinctive pattern matched the soles of Mr. Sellers' shoes. Both Mr. Sellers and Mr. Sailor were charged with second degree burglary.
They were convicted as charged. This appeal ensued.
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether sufficient evidence exists to convict Mr. Sellers and Mr. Sailor of second degree burglary.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Rempel, 114 Wn.2d 77, 82, 785 P.2d 1134 (1990) (citing State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980)). A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). Mr. Sellers and Mr. Sailor contend the State has failed to prove they unlawfully entered the cooler. Specifically, Mr. Sellers argues his distinctive footprints were found leading from the cooler, but not to the cooler. And Mr. Sailor argues there were several footprints around the golf course, none directly linked to him. "A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or a dwelling." RCW 9A.52.030(1). A person "enters or remains unlawfully" when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to enter or remain. RCW 9A.52.010(3). "Unlawful entry, like any other element of a crime, may be proved by circumstantial evidence." State v. McDaniels, 39 Wn. App. 236, 240, 692 P.2d 894 (1984).
Here, a silent alarm was set off and police arrived, finding the cooler door forced open. Two sets of footprints led from the cooler, one with a distinctive pattern. The two sets of tracks were the sole tracks that were fresh. The canine tracked the fresh footprints, leading the officers to a small wooded area near the 18th green where three 12-packs of beer were discovered. The canine continued to lead the officers. At times, there were several sets of footprints, but the canine was able to track the two sets of prints originating at the cooler. The officers were able to physically confirm and see the footprints. The officers were eventually led to a building where they located Mr. Sellers and Mr. Sailor.
They were wet and appeared alarmed. Between the men was a 12-pack of Kokanee beer with two opened bottles. The officers found this same brand of beer in the cooler and by the 18th green. The tracks with the distinctive pattern matched the soles of Mr. Sellers' shoes.
Given the above facts and viewing them in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sellers and Mr. Sailor both unlawfully entered the cooler. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support their convictions.
Affirmed.
A 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.
SCHULTHEIS, J. and KATO, J., concur.