Opinion
No. 66824-2-I consolidated with No. 66825-1-I1
03-05-2012
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. U.R., B.D. 3/25/95, Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appelwick, J. — U.R. appeals his conviction for theft in the third degree, arguing there was insufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator. We hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and affirm.
FACTS
Katie Osiadacz was working as a barista at the Cowgirls Pink Spot. While attending to a customer, she heard a noise behind her near the drive through window. She saw a teenage male wearing a red shirt, later identified as U.R., near the drive-through window placing an estimated $80 from the cafe's tip jar into his backpack. A second teenage male, later identified as I.W., was standing just behind U.R., wearing a white tee shirt. Osiadacz ran towards them and told them to stop as they turned to flee with the money. She chased after them, and I.W. paused momentarily to look back at her. U.R. then yelled, "Come on," and they ran off.
Osiadacz went back inside and called the police. Police responded to the scene within five or ten minutes, but could not initially find anyone matching the description she gave. A few hours later, officers received a tip about the suspects' whereabouts, approximately four blocks from the Pink Spot. The suspects detained there matched the general description Osiadacz had given. Officers then drove Osiadacz to the scene, where she positively identified them as the males involved in the Pink Spot theft. She stated the suspects had on the same clothes they had worn during the theft. Officers discovered approximately $70 in small bills on I.W. U.R. admitted to being with I.W. near the Pink Spot at the time of the theft, but denied any involvement.
U.R. was charged with theft in the third degree. U.R. and I.W. were also identified by a victim who was robbed on the same day, approximately one block away from the Pink Spot. The theft charge was tried before a judge with a charge of the robbery in the first degree, and the judge found U.R. guilty on both counts.
U.R. timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
U.R. argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for theft in the third degree. The State must prove each element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1, 13, 904 P.2d 754 (1995). Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it permits a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 586, 183 P.3d 267 (2008). "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). We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Fiser, 99 Wn. App. 714, 719, 995 P.2d 107 (2000).
U.R. admitted to being in the area during the theft, but contends the court convicted him based solely on his proximity to the scene, without the State establishing his identity as the thief. He claims Osiadacz's testimony did not prove that U.R. was the thief because she gave conflicting accounts as to what type of red top the thief was wearing. A log from the 911 dispatcher said the suspect who took the money was wearing a red jacket, but at trial Osiadacz was very clear that she remembered both seeing and reporting that the suspect was wearing a red shirt. U.R. also points to Osiadacz's uncertainty about whether the red shirt the suspect was wearing was a tee shirt or a sweatshirt, and whether it had distinct lettering.
Osiadacz witnessed the theft, she provided a general description of the thief, and U.R. matched that general description. U.R. was found near the scene and admitted to being present at the scene with I.W. during the theft. And, after U.R. was detained later in the day, Osiadacz immediately identified him as the person who took the money and stated he was wearing the same clothes he had worn during the theft. Additionally, U.R.'s accomplice, I.W. was found with a wad of cash consistent with the money stolen from the tip jar. U.R.'s insufficiency argument admits the truth of this evidence. See Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201. The trial court did not simply rely on U.R.'s mere proximity to the scene to support the conviction. The evidence provides proof beyond a reasonable doubt that U.R. was the person responsible for committing the theft. We reject U.R.'s insufficiency of the evidence argument and affirm.
U.R. also submitted a pro se statement of additional grounds. The issues he raises relate not to his theft conviction but to his conviction for robbery in the first degree. He broadly argues there was insufficient evidence to support his robbery conviction. And, he supports his argument primarily by disputing the credibility of the robbery victim, N.W., asserting his that his testimony contained contradictions. N.W.'s testimony formed the central basis for the robbery conviction. As addressed above, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence admits the truth of the State's evidence, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted against the defendant. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201. And, while U.R. may dispute N.W.'s credibility or version of the facts, matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, conflicting testimony, and the persuasiveness of the evidence are the exclusive province of the trier of fact. State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990); State v. Stewart, 141 Wn. App. 791, 795, 174 P.3d 111 (2007). Accordingly, U.R.'s argument in his Statement of Additional Grounds also fails.
__________ WE CONCUR:
__________
__________