Opinion
No. 37946-5-II.
May 12, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 08-1-01026-2, John R. Hickman, J., entered July 2, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Van Deren, C.J., and Houghton, J.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Terrence Smith appeals his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. He argues that the State failed (1) to allege an essential element of the crime in the information and (2) to produce sufficient evidence. A commissioner of this court initially considered Smith's appeal as a motion on the merits under RAP 18.14 and then referred it to a panel of judges. Concluding that both the evidence and the information were sufficient, we affirm Smith's conviction.
FACTS
Terrence Smith is required to register as a sex offender under RCW 9A.44.130. On June 26, 2006, he registered with the Pierce County Sheriff's Department that he was living at 2416 100th Street Court South, No. 9, Tacoma, WA. He registered no change of address thereafter.
On December 28, 2007, Detective Gary Sanders went to the 2416 100 Street Court South address to verify that Smith was residing there. Sanders discovered that there is no apartment number 9 at that apartment complex because the apartments are lettered, not numbered. Sanders showed Smith's picture to residents of the complex, but they did not recognize him. Sanders contacted the apartment managers, who informed him that Smith was not listed as a resident and that they had not seen him at the complex.
The State charged Smith with failure to register as a sex offender as follows:
That TERRENCE FRANK SMITH, in the State of Washington, on or about the 8th day of January, 2008, did unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly fail to comply with the registration requirements of RCW 9A.44.130 when required to do so, having been convicted of a felony sex offense . . . defendant failed to comply by either failing to reside at the registered address or by failing to comply with notification requirements regarding a change of address, contrary to RCW 9A.44.130.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1 (emphasis in original).
In a bench trial, Sanders and the apartment managers testified as described above. Smith testified that (1) on December 28, 2007, and January 8, 2008, he had lived at 2416 100th Street Court South, Apartment G; (2) he had registered at that address, but his "G" sometimes looks like a "9"; (3) as a sex offender, he had trouble renting apartments, so the apartment was rented under the names of his roommates, Ebony Holly and LaShawndra Taylor; (4) "my stay there was very, very secretive" because if he was seen living in the apartment, all of the roommates would have to move. Smith called no witnesses to verify his story.
The trial court found Smith guilty. Smith appeals.
ANALYSIS
Smith argues that the information was deficient because it failed to allege that he did not notify the sheriff within 72 hours of his change of address, as required by RCW 9A.44.130(5)(a). He contends that this time frame is an essential element of the crime, such that its absence from the information renders the information deficient. State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 105-06, 812 P.2d 86 (1991). We previously rejected this argument in State v. Peterson, 145 Wn. App. 672, 676-78, 186 P.3d 1179 (2008), review granted, 165 Wn.2d 1027 (2009). Therefore, this argument fails.
Next Smith argues that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that he was not living at 2416 100th Street Court South, Apartment G, on January 8, 2008. He contends that the only evidence that he was not living there came from managers who were at the apartment complex only two days per week and from a detective who failed to find Smith at the apartment only at the time he (Sanders) happened to visit.
The evidence is sufficient if, after viewing it in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find that all essential elements of the crime have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221-22, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). Taken in that light, the evidence was uncontroverted that Smith had misstated the address at which he had registered, that neighbors of the apartment did not recognize Smith's picture, that the apartment managers had no record of Smith's living there, that those managers did not recognize Smith, and that Smith admitted that he was not listed on the lease as a resident of Apartment G. No witnesses other than Smith testified that he had been living where he claimed. From this evidence, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith was not living at 2416 100th Street Court South, Apartment G (or 9), the address he had registered, on January 8, 2008, and that he had not registered any change of address with the Pierce County Sheriff's Department. We hold, therefore, that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Smith's conviction.
We affirm Smith's conviction for failure to register as a sex offender.
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, J. and VAN DEREN, C.J., concur.