State Of Washington v. Craig Stewart ( 2014 )

F ll_F- D
0UI?T° OF APPEALS
D IS1,0,
3
II
2014 FEB I l
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHING ON
pi 8: 40
DIVISION II
D T
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 44955 -2 -II
Respondent,
V.
CRAIG STEWART, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Penoyar, J. — Craig Stewart appeals his attempted residential burglary conviction. He
argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Because there is sufficient
evidence of each of the elements of this offense, we affirm.
FACTS
On December 18, 2012, at approximately 1: 00 P. M., while at home taking care of her
three children, Tanya Chukhriy heard the doorbell ring multiple times. Chukhriy looked through
the peep hole and saw a man, later identified as Stewart, standing on the porch. Chukhriy did not
recognize him and decided not to answer the door. Stewart continued to ring the doorbell and
Stewart his hood his head Stewart proceeded to
Chukhriy saw pull over and put on sunglasses.
another door near the garage, opened the screen door and began hitting and turning the door
knob of the interior door. Stewart then paced outside the house, peeking inwindows and shaking
the front door. Chukhriy called 911. While Chukhriy was on the phone with 911, Stewart went
into the backyard. Attempting to locate Stewart, Chukhriy walked toward a glass door that faces
the backyard when a rock flew through the glass and grazed her arm. Chukhriy locked herself in
a bedroom with her children. Officers arrived and were unable to locate the suspect.
44955 -2 -II
Later that afternoon, officers arrested Stewart about one mile from Chukhriy' s house.
Stewart matched the description of the suspect and was wearing a dark rain jacket with a hood.
Officers located sunglasses in his pocket. Chukhriy positively identified Stewart as the suspect.
The State charged Stewart with attempted residential burglary ( count one), alleging an
aggravating factor that the victim of the attempted burglary was in the residence during the
commission of the crime, and third degree malicious mischief (count two).
A jury found Stewart guilty of attempted residential burglary and third degree malicious
mischief. The jury affirmed the special allegation. The court sentenced Stewart to 30 months of
confinement for count one, and a suspended sentence of 364 days for count two.' Stewart
appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Stewart argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his attempted residential
burglary conviction. Specifically, Stewart argues the State did not prove he attempted to enter
the house with the intent to commit a crime therein because the evidence presented at trial
created an alternate inference that Stewart only intended to commit vandalism. This argument
fails.
Evidence is legally sufficient to support a guilty verdict if any rational trier of fact,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the elements of the
charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Montgomery, 163 Wash. 2d 577, 586, 183 P.3d
267 ( 2008) ( citing State v. Green, 94 Wash. 2d 216, 221 -22, 616 P.2d 628 ( 1980)). We interpret all
Stewart does not appeal count two.
2
44955 -2 -II
reasonable inferences in the State' s favor. State v. Hosier, 157 Wash. 2d 1, 8, 133 P.3d 936 ( 2006).
Direct and circumstantial evidence carry the same weight. State v. Varga, 151 Wash. 2d 179, 201,
86 P.3d 139 ( 2004). Credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and are not subject to
review. State v. Cantu, 156 Wash. 2d 819, 831, 132 P.3d 725 ( 2006).
A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a
person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling .other than a
vehicle." RCW 9A. 52. 025( 1). " A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with
intent to commit a specific crime, he or she does any act which is a substantial step toward the
commission of that crime." RCW 9A.28. 020( 1). Attempted residential burglary requires the
State to prove a substantial step toward and the intent to commit residential burglary. State v.
Bencivenga, 137 Wash. 2d 703, 707, 974 P.2d 832 ( 1999) ( citing State v. Aumick, 126 Wash. 2d 422,
429 -30, 894 P.2d 1325 ( 1995)). Therefore, the State must prove a person, with the intent to
commit the crime of residential burglary, performed an act that was a substantial step toward
entering or remaining unlawfully in a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime against a person
or property therein. State v. West, 18 Wash. App. 686, 690, 571 P.2d 237 ( 1977).
Intent to attempt a crime ... may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances."
Bencivenga, 137 Wash. 2d at 709. "` The jury is permitted to infer from one fact[,] the existence of
another essential to guilt, if reason and experience support the inference."' State v. Jackson, 112
Wash. 2d 867, 875, 774 P.2d 1211 ( 1989) ( quoting Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 467, 63 S.
Ct. 1241, 87 L. Ed. 1519 ( 1943)). " Just because there are hypothetically rational alternative
3
44955 -2 -II
conclusions to be drawn from the proven facts, the fact finder is not lawfully barred against
discarding one possible inference when it concludes such inference unreasonable under the
circumstances." Bencivenga, 137 Wash. 2d at 708. In fact, "[ a] n essential function of the fact
finder is to discount theories which it determines unreasonable." Bencivenga, 137 Wash. 2d at 709.
Stewart argues that there is insufficient evidence to show he acted with the intent to
commit a crime against, a person or property therein because the evidence presented at trial
created an alternate inference that Stewart only intended to commit vandalism. Here, while there
may be an alternate inference, the jury rejected it, inferring rather that Stewart had the intent to
commit a crime within the house. The evidence amply supported this inference: there was
evidence that Stewart rang the doorbell a number of times, pulled a hood over his head, put on
sunglasses, circled the house, attempted to open multiple doors to the house, and threw a rock
through the glass door in the backyard. The jury' s inference is not irrational. See Bencivenga,
137 Wash. 2d at 709 ( holding that a man dressed in dark clothing, attempting to pry open the door
of a KFC at 3: 30 AM in a snowstorm was sufficient evidence for a jury to infer that he intended'
to commit a crime within the KFC rather than his claim that he was prying the door open to win
a bet). There was sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to rationally infer that Stewart intended to
commit a crime within the dwelling. We affirm Stewart' s conviction.
0
44955 -2 -II
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.
enoyar, J
We concur:
0
Johanson, A.
I t
I
Maxa, J.