Opinion
42986-1-II
02-12-2013
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JOSHUA PAUL WILDMAN, Appellant
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Hunt, J.
Joshua Paul Wildman appeals his jury trial conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. He argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence that he constructively possessed the methamphetamine found in his vehicle. Disagreeing, we affirm.
FACTS
Chehalis Police Officer Warren Ayers stopped a Ford Explorer being driven by Joshua Wildman after confirming that title to the car had not been transferred as required after sale. Wildman had three passengers in his vehicle: Christopher Partsch, who was in the back seat behind Wildman; Marcus Inman, who was in the front passenger seat; and Briana Carrouthers, who was in the rear seat behind Inman. After running warrant checks on Wildman's passengers, Ayers told them they were free to leave. They gathered their belongings and left. Officer Chris Taylor, who had come to assist Ayers, saw passenger Partsch take a black suitcase and a dog and saw Inman take a backpack.
Wildman produced a Wisconsin identification card and said the vehicle was his. Ayers discovered an outstanding warrant for Wildman, arrested him, searched him incident to arrest, and discovered a syringe in his wallet. After being advised of his constitutional rights, Wildman admitted that the syringe was his. Ayers called for a narcotics canine search. When the narcotics search dog alerted to the passenger-side front door of the vehicle, Ayers had it towed to the police department.
After obtaining and executing a search warrant for Wildman's vehicle, Ayers found a red zippered pouch behind the rear passenger seat. Within the red pouch he found a plastic baggy containing a white crystalline substance and more syringes. He also found a box of syringes in the vehicle. The white crystalline substance later tested positive for methamphetamine.
The State charged Wildman with unlawful possession of methamphetamine. At trial, Officers Ayers and Taylor testified as described above. Wildman testified that (1) he had agreed to give Partsch a ride to Chehalis and, at Partsch's request, had also agreed to help Inman and Carrouthers pick up their belongings in Chehalis; (2) Inman and Carrouthers had put a "ginormous" amount of stuff in his (Wildman's) vehicle; (3) when Ayers initiated the traffic stop, Inman threw a hypodermic syringe on the floor and said, "You better not tell, " so Wildman put the syringe in his wallet; and (4) after Ayers arrested him on the warrant, he (Wildman) said he saw Inman and Carrouthers pull bags of their belongings out of the vehicle. Report of Proceedings at 84, 89. Wildman denied having had narcotics in the vehicle, and he denied that the red zippered bag belonged to him.
The jury found Wildman guilty as charged. He appeals.
A commissioner of this court initially considered Wildman's appeal as a motion on the merits under RAP 18.14 and then transferred it to a panel of judges.
ANALYSIS
Wildman argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he constructively possessed the methamphetamine in the red zippered bag in his vehicle. He contends that the State did not show that he had dominion and control over the methamphetamine found in his vehicle. We disagree.
Evidence is sufficient if, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, it permits any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). "A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom." Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201. The State can establish constructive possession by showing that the defendant had dominion and control over the premises where the contraband was found. State v. Callahan, 77 Wn.2d 27, 29-30, 459 P.2d 400 (1969); State v. George, 146 Wn.App. 906, 920, 193 P.3d (2008). Dominion and control over the premises creates a rebuttable inference of domination and control over contraband on the premises. State v. Turner, 103 Wn.App. 515, 523-24, 13 P.3d 234 (2000); State v. Cantabrana, 83 Wn.App. 204, 208, 921 P.2d 572 (1996). Dominion and control is determined by the totality of the circumstances. State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899, 906, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977), overruled on other grounds by State v. Lyons, 174 Wn.2d 354, 275 P.3d 314 (2012); State v. Collins, 76 Wn.App. 496, 501, 886 P.2d 243, review denied, 126 Wn.2d 1016 (1995).
Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we note that the record establishes the following facts: Wildman owned the vehicle in which the officers found methamphetamine inside a red zippered bag located in an unlocked and accessible rear compartment. He had a syringe in his wallet and additional syringes in the zippered bag. We hold, therefore, that the State presented sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that Wildman had dominion and control over the vehicle and to draw a permissive inference that he had dominion and control over the methamphetamine found in his vehicle, thereby constructively possessing it.
The jury was entitled to reject Wildman's trial testimony to the contrary. His reliance on George, 146 Wn.App. at 923, State v. Cote, 123 Wn.App. 546, 550, 96 P.3d 410 (2004), and State v. Enlow, 143 Wn.App. 463, 468-69, 178 P.3d 366 (2008), is misplaced because in none of those cases was the defendant both the driver and owner of the vehicle in which the contraband was found. Moreover, contrary to Wildman's assertion, constructive possession need not be exclusive. Turner, 103 Wn.App. at 521.
We affirm.
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 in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
We concur: Hunt, J., Johanson, A.C.J., Penoyar, J.