State of Washington v. Policarpo Cruz-Nava ( 2018 )

FILED
AUGUST 9, 2018
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 35114-9-III
)
Respondent, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
POLICARPO CRUZ-NAVA, )
)
Appellant. )
PENNELL, A.C.J. — Policarpo Cruz-Nava appeals his convictions and sentence for
second degree assault, first degree assault with a deadly weapon enhancement, and felony
harassment. We affirm Mr. Cruz-Nava’s convictions, but a majority of the panel has
voted to reverse the discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) imposed as part of
Mr. Cruz-Nava’s sentence.
FACTS
Mr. Cruz-Nava was in a long-term intimate relationship with a woman named
Maribel Analco-Gutierrez. On several occasions in the spring of 2016 Mr. Cruz-Nava
invited his co-worker, Hugo Mateos-Rosas, to the home he shared with Ms. Analco-
Gutierrez for dinner and drinking. On each occasion, Mr. Cruz-Nava encouraged Mr.
Mateos-Rosas to engage Ms. Analco-Gutierrez sexually. His efforts were met with varied
success.
No. 35114-9-III
State v. Cruz-Nava
Mr. Cruz-Nava’s final effort to encourage sexual relations between Mr. Mateos-
Rosas and Ms. Analco-Gutierrez occurred in early April 2016. That evening, after Mr.
Cruz-Nava and Mr. Mateos-Rosas became heavily intoxicated, Mr. Cruz-Nava asked Mr.
Mateos-Rosas and Ms. Analco-Gutierrez to disrobe. Both refused. Mr. Cruz-Nava then
became angry. He grabbed Ms. Analco-Gutierrez by her neck and said he was going to
kill her. At this point, Ms. Analco-Gutierrez became very scared. Mr. Mateos-Rosas
eventually was able to pull Mr. Cruz-Nava away from Ms. Analco-Gutierrez. Mr. Cruz-
Nava began to punch in Ms. Analco-Gutierrez’s direction, with one hitting her and one
hitting Mr. Mateos-Rosas.
Mr. Mateos-Rosas followed Mr. Cruz-Nava to the kitchen, where Mr. Cruz-Nava
procured a small knife. 1 Mr. Mateos-Rosas urged Mr. Cruz-Nava to calm down and took
hold of a closed folding chair to keep Mr. Cruz-Nava from getting too close. Mr. Cruz-
Nava repeatedly came toward Mr. Mateos-Rosas with the knife. Mr. Cruz-Nava held the
knife firmly in his hand and stated he was going to kill Mr. Mateos-Rosas and Ms.
Analco-Gutierrez.
Eventually, Mr. Mateos-Rosas grasped Mr. Cruz-Nava’s hand in order to loosen
his grip on the knife. Mr. Cruz-Nava then threw the knife into the kitchen. Mr. Cruz-
1
The knife measured 2 and 15/16 inches.
2
No. 35114-9-III
State v. Cruz-Nava
Nava yelled to call the police because he was going to kill Mr. Mateos-Rosas. Despite
Mr. Cruz-Nava’s threat, Mr. Mateos-Rosas was able to leave the residence.
Once Mr. Mateos-Rosas was gone, Mr. Cruz-Nava re-entered the bedroom and
eventually fell asleep. Ms. Analco-Gutierrez subsequently left the house and reported the
incident to the police.
At trial, the court permitted ER 404(b) testimony from Ms. Analco-Gutierrez
regarding a prior domestic violence incident between herself and Mr. Cruz-Nava. The
incident had taken place several years earlier in California. Although the State lacked
evidence of a conviction, it did have a report indicating Mr. Cruz-Nava was arrested in
California in May 2009 for corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant.
At the close of trial, the jury found Mr. Cruz-Nava guilty of (1) second degree
assault by strangulation or suffocation of Ms. Analco-Gutierrez, with a domestic violence
enhancement, (2) felony harassment for the threat to kill Ms. Analco-Gutierrez, with a
domestic violence enhancement, (3) felony harassment for the threat to kill Mr. Mateos-
Rosas, and (4) first degree assault of Mr. Mateos-Rosas with a deadly weapon or by force
or means likely to produce great bodily harm, with a deadly weapon enhancement.
At sentencing, the trial court imposed 156 months’ imprisonment and a series of
LFOs, payable in installments of $35 per month, commencing 60 days after Mr. Cruz-
3
No. 35114-9-III
State v. Cruz-Nava
Nava’s release from custody. 2 Mr. Cruz-Nava appeals.
ANALYSIS
Sufficiency of the evidence
Mr. Cruz-Nava argues the State failed to produce sufficient evidence of first
degree assault because the circumstances in which he wielded the knife did not indicate it
was a deadly weapon. Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewed in the
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. Kintz, 169 Wash. 2d 537, 551,
238 P.3d 470 (2010). A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State’s evidence
and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. Circumstantial evidence and direct
evidence are equally reliable. Id.
Mr. Cruz-Nava was convicted of violating RCW 9A.36.011(1)(a), which provides:
“A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if he or she, with intent to inflict great
bodily harm . . . [a]ssaults another with a firearm or any deadly weapon or by any force or
means likely to produce great bodily harm or death.” Objects other than firearms and
explosives constitute deadly weapons only if the State proves, under the circumstances of
2
The judgment indicates the court imposed $1,250 in total LFOs. However, the
individual fees, costs, and assessments listed on the judgment amount to $1,365.
4
No. 35114-9-III
State v. Cruz-Nava
the case, the object was “readily capable of causing death or substantial bodily harm.”
RCW 9A.04.110(6). “‘Substantial bodily harm’ means bodily injury which involves a
temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss
or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ, or which causes a fracture of
any bodily part.” RCW 9A.04.110(4)(b).
Here, the State produced sufficient evidence that the knife possessed by Mr. Cruz-
Nava constituted a deadly weapon, as required by statute. The State’s evidence was not
simply that Mr. Cruz-Nava possessed a knife. Cf. In re Pers. Restraint of Martinez,
171 Wash. 2d 354, 366, 256 P.3d 277 (2011) (The deadly weapon statute “requires more
than mere possession where the weapon in question is neither a firearm nor an
explosive.”). Instead, Mr. Cruz-Nava gripped the knife in full view of Mr. Mateos-Rosas
while issuing death threats and moving toward Mr. Mateos-Rosas. Given the small size
of Mr. Cruz-Nava’s home and the fact that Mr. Mateos-Rosas was able to grab Mr. Cruz-
Nava’s hand in an effort to loosen his grip on the knife, it is apparent Mr. Cruz-Nava
wielded the knife in close enough proximity to Mr. Mateos-Rosas that it could have
caused significant injury. Although the folding chair used by Mr. Mateos-Rosas provided
some protection, it did not eliminate the potential for serious injury. Cf. State v.
Skenandore, 99 Wash. App. 494, 994 P.2d 291 (2000) (A handmade spear did not constitute
5
No. 35114-9-III
State v. Cruz-Nava
a deadly weapon given that a cell door protected the prison guard from potential injury.).
The totality of the State’s evidence amply justified the jury’s deadly weapon verdict.
State v. Holmes, 106 Wash. App. 775, 781-82, 24 P.3d 1118 (2001) (There was sufficient
evidence that knife constituted deadly weapon when the defendant “held the knife with
the blade extended and waved it at the [victim] who was standing a few feet away,
thereby forcing the [victim] to step back.”).
ER 404(b) violation—improperly admitted prior bad act evidence
Mr. Cruz-Nava argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of
the 2009 domestic violence incident from California under ER 404(b). We disagree.
Evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts is not admissible as character evidence or
to prove the defendant acted in conformity with a certain character trait. ER 404(b).
However, bad act evidence may be admissible if it is relevant for a noncharacter purpose
and is not overly prejudicial. Id. To admit prior bad act evidence under ER 404(b), the
trial court must (1) find by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior act occurred,
(2) identify “the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced,”
(3) determine “whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime
charged,” and (4) weigh “the probative value against the prejudicial effect.” State v.
Thang, 145 Wash. 2d 630, 642, 41 P.3d 1159 (2002).
6
No. 35114-9-III
State v. Cruz-Nava
The record supports the trial court’s admission of the State’s ER 404(b) evidence
under the four relevant factors:
FIRST: Reliable evidence supports that the prior act occurred. According to the
State’s pretrial offer of proof, Ms. Analco-Gutierrez was able to describe the prior
assault and her account was at least partially corroborated by the existence of an
arrest record. This was sufficient for the State to meet its factual burden. State v.
Kilgore, 147 Wash. 2d 288, 294-95, 53 P.3d 974 (2002).
SECOND: Evidence of the prior act was relevant to prove Ms. Analco-Gutierrez
reasonably feared Mr. Cruz-Nava’s threats. State v. Barragan, 102 Wash. App. 754,
759, 9 P.3d 942 (2000).
THIRD: The reasonableness of Ms. Analco-Gutierrez’s fear bore on the elements
of the charged crime of felony harassment. Id.; RCW 9A.46.020(1).
FOURTH: The prior act evidence was not overly prejudicial. The trial court
permitted introduction of only one prior assault. This evidence was brief and was
limited to Ms. Analco-Gutierrez’s testimony.
Given all four of the elements to admissibility under ER 404(b) were met, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the State to introduce evidence of Mr.
Cruz-Nava’s prior assault.
7
No. 35114-9-III
State v. Cruz-Nava
LFOs imposed without considering Mr. Cruz-Nava’s ability to pay
Mr. Cruz-Nava argues the trial court did not properly assess his financial capacity
prior to imposing discretionary LFOs. Although no objection was made at the time of
sentencing, we have discretion to review this issue under RAP 2.5(a). A majority of the
panel elects to exercise this discretion. See State v. Blazina, 182 Wash. 2d 827, 832,
344 P.3d 680 (2015).
At sentencing, the trial court imposed over $500 in discretionary LFOs. 3 While
the trial court found Mr. Cruz-Nava had an ability to pay these LFOs, this was based
solely on trial testimony indicating Mr. Cruz-Nava had been working prior to his arrest. 4
The trial court never questioned Mr. Cruz-Nava about his work history or financial
circumstances. There was no evidence considered regarding Mr. Cruz-Nava’s
employment skills, the amount of his prior earnings, his financial resources, or his debts.
Because the trial court did not conduct an individualized inquiry into Mr. Cruz-Nava’s
ability to pay court-ordered financial obligations, the imposition of discretionary LFOs is
3
The mandatory LFOs included a $500 victim assessment, $200 criminal filing
fee, and $100 DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) fee. The remaining financial obligations
were discretionary.
4
Ms. Analco-Gutierrez and Mr. Mateos-Rosas testified that they had worked with
Mr. Cruz-Nava.
8
No. 35114-9-III
State v. Cruz-Nava
reversed. Blazina, 182 Wash. 2d at 838. This matter is remanded with instructions to either
strike the discretionary LFOs or for resentencing.
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
In his statement of additional grounds for review (SAG), Mr. Cruz-Nava argues:
(1) he never touched the knife introduced at trial and it does not have his fingerprints on
it, (2) Ms. Analco-Gutierrez intimidated a witness to not appear at trial, (3) the witnesses
changed dates and times on several occasions during their trial testimony, (4) messages
sent to Mr. Cruz-Nava on April 4, 2016, from Mr. Mateos-Rosas, which show he never
felt threatened or afraid of Mr. Cruz-Nava, were not introduced at trial, (5) evidence was
not introduced to show that the door, from inside the home, cannot be locked with a key,
contradicting the testimony given that Mr. Cruz-Nava kept the keys to keep Ms. Analco-
Gutierrez and Mr. Mateos-Rosas from leaving, (6) the prosecution gave immunity to a
presumed sexual offender and drug dealer, Mr. Mateos-Rosas, and (7) the dispute from
May 2009 in California was not with Ms. Analco-Gutierrez, rather, it was with her son
and she got involved and injured in the arm.
The majority of Mr. Cruz-Nava’s allegations relate to facts and materials outside
the existing record. As such, review on direct appeal is inappropriate. Instead, the proper
avenue for relief is a personal restraint petition. State v. McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d 322,
9
No. 35114-9-III
State v. Cruz-Nava
335, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). To the extent the issues raised in Mr. Cruz-Nava's SAG
can be assessed under the current record, they are too conclusory to inform the court of
the nature and occurrence of the alleged errors. We therefore do not review Mr. Cruz-
Nava's claims any further. State v. Alvarado, 164 Wash. 2d 556, 569, 192 P.3d 345 (2008);
RAP 10.lO(c).
CONCLUSION
Mr. Cruz-Nava's convictions are affirmed. The trial court's imposition of
discretionary LFOs is reversed. This matter is remanded with instructions for the trial
court to either strike the discretionary LFOs or to conduct resentencing as to the
imposition of discretionary LFOs. Because Mr. Cruz-Nava has partially prevailed on
appeal, the State shall not be awarded appellate costs.
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.
Pennell, A.CJ.
WE CONCUR:
~ ' ~
Fearinn) ,
10