State Of Washington v. Alejandro Ochoa ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                       PEA LS
    20,14 APR - I
    4M 05' 25
    S'           J
    MINGTON
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DIVISION II
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                                            No. 44645 -6 -II
    Respondent,
    V.
    ALEJANDRO BUSTOS- OCHOA,                                                 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    JOHANSON, A.C. J. —            Alejandro Bustos -Ochoa appeals from his delivery of a controlled
    substance   conviction.-    He claims that -
    the State offered -insufficient -evidence -to prove that he
    to a
    transferred methamphetamine -               confidential-informant       Q.-He- argues- that law- enforcement - - - - -_-
    -(
    lost contact and control over the CI for nearly 90 minutes while they waited for the transaction to
    happen,   and   that   no one              saw   Bustos -Ochoa   give   the Cl the   methamphetamine.    Because
    actually
    the State offered sufficient evidence at trial from which a reasonable juror could infer that
    Bustos -Ochoa delivered         methamphetamine       to the CI,   we affirm   Bustos- Ochoa'   s conviction.
    No. 44645 -6 -II
    FACTS
    On March 22, 2012, a Cl, arrested earlier that day on different drug charges, assisted the
    Cowlitz/Wahkiakum Narcotics Task Force ( " task force ")                        in a controlled buy' in the parking lot
    of   the Longview Home Depot.             The task force supervised the CI at all times between his arrest
    and the end of the controlled buy later that day. Kelso Police Detective Jeffrey Brown drove the
    CI in the CI'    s vehicle     from the CI'     s   home to the location for the           controlled     buy.    Before the
    controlled buy, Longview Police Detective Brian Streissguth searched the CI and his car.
    Streissguth did        not   find any drugs         or   cash   on   the   CI    or   anywhere   in his    car.    Detective
    Streissguth     gave    the CI $ 1, 240 in prerecorded cash to purchase an ounce of methamphetamine.
    Although the       detectives'   testimony differed about the passage of time during the
    controlled    buy,   the   substance of   the   events and observations was consistent.              The task force had
    sight of the CI at all times between 8: 00 PM and 10: 00 PM while waiting for the meeting to
    happen. The Cl never interacted with anyone or any part of his vehicle until a black Volkswagon
    arrived around       10: 00 PM.   The CI was in the black Volkswagon for a few minutes, and then the
    Although
    drove away. --
    Volkswagon--                                        none -of the surveillance officers could -see inside"-of the - - - - -
    black Volkswagon when the CI got in, Detectives Streissguth and James Hanberry saw the driver
    as   he left.    After the black Volkswagon left, Kelso Police Sergeant Kevin Tate saw the CI
    interact" with the fuel door area of his car where it was planned the CI would hide the drugs he
    purchased.      After the meeting was over, Detective Streissguth again searched the CI and his car
    A "         buy" is when law enforcement uses a Cl to conduct a drug buy. Law
    controlled
    enforcement searches the CI before and after the buy, holds any money found on the CI until
    after the buy, and gives the CI only prerecorded cash for the drug deal.  Law enforcement
    follows the CI to the meeting location and there is continuous surveillance of the CI to ensure
    that he /she interacts only with the targeted suspect.
    2
    No. 44645 -6 -II
    finding about an ounce of methamphetamine in the fuel door of the car which had not been there
    before. The CI     no    longer had the $ 1, 240 Detective Streissguth gave to him.
    All of the detectives, including Sergeant Tate and Detective Hanberry, testified that they
    followed the Volkswagon after it left the Home Depot parking lot and eventually arrived at an
    address on 78th Street in Vancouver. They saw the male driver, identified as Bustos- Ochoa, get
    out of the car and walk into the house.
    After police executed a search warrant on the Vancouver house, the State charged
    Bustos -Ochoa      with    delivery    of a controlled substance.                    At trial, the detectives involved in the
    surveillance of    the   controlled    buy    testified to the above            facts.    The Cl did not testify because the
    State could not locate him. A jury found Bustos -Ochoa guilty as charged, and he now appeals.
    ANALYSIS
    Bustos -Ochoa argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him because no one
    saw   the   delivery   occur    and   the   CI did   not   testify     at   trial.    Because there was sufficient evidence
    from which a jury could infer that Bustos Ochoa delivered a controlled substance to the CI, we
    Ziff rm.
    An insufficiency claim admits the truth of the State' s evidence and all inferences
    reasonably drawn from the              evidence.      State      v.   Salinas, 
    119 Wn.2d 192
    , 201,            
    829 P. 2d 1068
    1992).     There is sufficient evidence to convict when, after viewing the evidence in the light most
    favorable to the State, any rational juror could have found the elements of the crime met beyond
    a reasonable     doubt.     Salinas, 
    119 Wn.2d at 201
    .        Direct and circumstantial evidence carry the
    same weight.      State   v.   Allen, _      Wn.    App. ,            
    317 P. 3d 494
    , 498 ( 2014).       We do not reweigh
    3
    No. 44645 -6 -II
    the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the jury. State v. Kilburn, 
    151 Wn.2d 36
    , 57,
    
    84 P. 3d 1215
     ( 2004).
    RCW 69. 50.401( 1) prohibits the manufacture, delivery, or possession of any controlled
    substance with     intent to   manufacture or    deliver the    controlled substance.    Methamphetamine is a
    schedule   II    controlled   substance.    RCW 69. 50. 206( d)( 2). "      Delivery"   and "   deliver" mean the
    actual or constructive transfer of a substance from one person to another. RCW 69. 50. 101( f).
    Bustos -Ochoa argues that without direct observation of what occurred in the car and
    without    the    CI' s   testimony, the      State   cannot prove       that Bustos -Ochoa       transferred   the
    to the Cl.    Bustos -Ochoa also asserts that the task force did not observe the
    CI for over 90 minutes and that the CI could have gotten the methamphetamine from another
    person because Sergeant Tate and Detective Hanberry testified that they had only been watching
    the CI for a short time. We disagree.
    The State needed to prove that Bustos -Ochoa transferred methamphetamine to the CI on
    March 22, 2012.      Before meeting with Bustos -Ochoa, the CI did not have drugs on his person or
    anywhere in his car.          Detective Streissguth gave the Cl $        1, 240 in -
    premarked bills to buy an -
    ounce of methamphetamine. After the black Volkswagon left, Detective Streissguth found about
    an ounce of methamphetamine in the CI' s car and the Cl no longer had the premarked cash.
    Detectives Streissguth and Hanberry identified the driver of the black Volkswagon and the man
    who walked       into the house   at   78th Street   as   Bustos -Ochoa.    Despite the discrepancies in their
    calculation of time, all the State' s witnesses stated that they had sight of the CI from the time he
    was arrested earlier in the day until after the controlled buy was complete and never observed
    2 Both parties stipulated that the substance Detective Streissguth recovered from the fuel door of
    the CI' s car was methamphetamine.
    4
    No. 44645 -6 -II
    him, interact with anyone else or any other part of his car until after the meeting with the black
    Volkswagon. Based on this evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom, any rational juror
    could determine that Bustos -Ochoa transferred methamphetamine to the CI on March 22, 2012.
    Although no one directly witnessed Bustos -Ochoa delivering the methamphetamine to
    the CI in the car, the reasonable inferences drawn from the State' s evidence establish that a
    transfer of methamphetamine occurred. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.
    Affirmed.
    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.
    J   HANSON, A.C. J.
    We concur:
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 44645-6

Filed Date: 4/1/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014