### FILED DEC 8,2015 In the Office ofthe ClerkofCourt W A StateCourtofAppeals, Division III

INTHE COURT OFAPPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 32641-1-111 Respondent, ) ) 

### v. ) ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION MONTYRAYBOCKMAN, ) ) Appellant. )
KORSMO,

### J.

- Monty Bockman appeals his convictions for residential burglary, unlawful possession ofa controlled substance (methamphetamine), and bailjumping. He contendsthetrial court erred in admitting statements he made to law enforcement. Because any errorin admitting the statements was harmless, we affirm. FACTS RyanBoyce, a WestRichlandpolice officerwhoworked undercover atthe time of the burglary, did nottypically discuss his occupation with his neighbors. Late inthe morning onDecember 9,2013, Mr. Boycereturnedhome from running errands and discoveredhis home had been burglarized. He entered his house viathe front door and
sawthe sliding glass door leading to the backyardwas open. He then noticed five or six fence boardskicked out inthe fence separatinghis yard from his neighbor's, MichaelNo. 32641-1-II1 State v. Bockman Hennessey; the fence boards were found in Mr. Hennessey's backyard. The gate to Mr. Boyce'sbackyard was also open. An unfamiliarbicycle tire was leaning up against the fence inside Mr. Boyce'sbackyard. Mr. Boyce observed footprints in the dirt on both sides ofthe fence. Mr. Boyce armed himselfand checked the house. He determined his work laptop was missing, but other valuables were not stolen. Mr. Boyce calledthe police.OfficerJoshua Sullivan responded. Officer Sullivan and Mr. Boycewent through the hole in the fence and verifiedMr. Hennessey was not athome. The gates to Mr. Hennessey's backyard were locked. Mr. Boycetold Officer Sullivan he believed his neighbor, Mr. Bockman, may have committed the burglary. Afterthe officers left, Mr. Boyce, concerned about his missing work laptop, decided to see ifit had been dropped orhidden near his house. He crawled through the fence into Mr. Hennessey's backyard and decided to check the shed. He could not open the shed doors because someonewas holding them closed. He steppedback from the shed and called the police. As he was speaking with dispatch, Mr. Boyceheard a male voice inside the shed asking him not to call thepolice and saying they could work things out. Suddenly, the doors opened and Mr. Bockman emerged stating, "Itold you not to call the police." Report ofProceedings at 44. Mr. Boyce, believing Mr. Bockman might assaulthim because ofhis aggressive tone and stance, broughtMr. Bockmanto the ground. The two men began struggling. Mr. Bockman calledMr. Boyce a pig, said Mr. 2No. 32641-1-III State v. Bockman Boyce did not deserve his house, and stated Mr. Boyce and "Grego" were what was wrong with the world. Mr. Boycebelieved Mr. Bockman was referringto Sergeant Grego, Mr. Boyce's coworker. Officer Sullivan returned to Mr. Boyce'shome. Officer Sullivan and a second officer detained Mr. Bockman after a struggle. Mr. Bockman lost one ofhis boots during the struggle with Mr. Boyce; the tread pattern oftheboot matched the footprints found in Mr. Boyce's and Mr. Hennessey'sbackyards. Officer Sullivan searched Mr. Bockman and found a digital camera, apink feather, a small flashlight, and a thumb drive in his pants pocket. Mr. Boyce stated all items except for the feather belonged to him. Officer Sullivan read Mr. Bockmanhis Miranda l rights while in Mr. Hennessey's backyard. He asked Mr. Bockman what was going on, and Mr. Bockmanreplied hehad permission from Mr. Hennessey to be in his backyard. Mr. Bockman also statedhis bicycle had a flat tire he was tryingto fix. Atthis point, Officer Sullivan stopped further questioning as Mr. Bockman became incoherent. Attrial, Mr. Hennessey denied giving Mr. Bockman permission to be in his backyard. Officers executed a search warrant atMr. Bockman'sresidence to search for Mr. Boyce'swork laptop. They found the laptop as well as a pairofpink shoes belonging to Mr. Boyce's wife in a bagjustinside the front door; the bag also contained mail

I Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,86 S. 

## ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
3

### No. 32641-1-III State v. Bockman


### addressed to Mr. Bockman. In a second bag, officers found a glass smoking pipe and a baggie ofa white substance, later confirmed to be methamphetamine. The officers also
saw a bicycle missing a tire in Mr. Bockman'skitchen. In a CrR 3.5 hearing, the trial court held Mr. Bockman's statements to Officer Sullivan were admissible because Officer Sullivan advised Mr. Bockman ofhis rights priorto questioning, Mr. Bockman verbally acknowledged he understood those rights, and Mr. Bockman made his statements knowingly, freely, and voluntarily. At trial, the State introduced evidence showing Mr. Bockman failed to appear in court at an omnibus hearing on January 16,2014. Ajury found Mr. Bockman guilty of residential burglary, unlawful possession ofa controlled substance, and bailjumping. Mr. Bockman appealed. ANALYSIS The issue is whether the trial court erred in admitting Mr. Bockman's statements to Officer Sullivan. Mr. Bockman contends the trial court incorrectly held he waived his Miranda 

### rights and the admission ofhis statements is not harmless error. Assuming without deciding the trial court erroneously admitted Mr. Bockman's statements, any erroris harmless. Admission ofstatements obtained in violation of Miranda 

### is subjectto a harmless error analysis. State 

### v. Reuben, 

### 62 Wn. App. 620, 626, 814 P.2d 1177 (1991). In analyzing harmless error, the Washington Supreme Court adopted the "overwhelminguntainted evidence" standard: "we look only at the untainted 4No. 32641-1-III State 

### v. Bockman
evidence to determine ifit is so overwhelming it necessarily leads to a finding ofguilty." 

### ld. at 627 (citingState v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412, 426, 705 P.2d 1182 (1985)). Mr. Bockman made two statements to Officer Sullivan: (1) Mr. Hennessey gave him permission to be in the backyard, and (2) he wanted to fix a flat bicycle tire. Neither statement had any effect on Mr. Bockman's convictions for unlawful possession ofa controlled substance and bailjumping. Officers found methamphetamine in a bag inside Mr. Bockman's house as well as Mr. Bockman'sbank card in the samebag; this proves unlawful possession ofa controlled substance. Certified court documents produced at trial showed Mr. Bockman failed to appear for an omnibus hearing; this proves bail Jumpmg. As for the residential burglary conviction, Mr. Bockman's statements were not a confession to the burglary. Other overwhelming, untainted evidence necessarily leads to
a finding ofguilt. Officers saw footprints consistent with Mr. Bockman's boots in Mr. Boyce's and Mr. Hennessey's backyards, nearthe newly damaged fence. Mr. Bockman
was found hiding in Mr. Hennessey's shed several hours after the burglary. Mr. Hennessey never gave Mr. Bockmanpermission to be in his backyard. Mr. Bockman told Mr. Boyce not to call the police and became aggressive after Mr. Boyce did call. He referred to one ofMr. Boyce's coworkers even though Mr. Boyce had nevertold Mr. Bockman ofhis occupation; however, the closet doorwhere Mr. Boycekept his police uniforms was opened during the burglary. When officers searched Mr. Bockman, they 5

### No. 32641-1-111 State 

### v. Bockman


### found 

### Mr. Boyce's digital camera, flashlight, and thumb drive in his pants pocket. Mr. Boyce'smissing laptop, his wife's shoes, and mail addressed to Mr. Bockmanwere found in a bag in Mr. Bockman's house. In Mr. Bockman's kitchen, officers found a bicycle with a missing tire. Given this evidence, Mr. Bockman's statements were not essential to thejury's finding ofguilt on the residential burglary charge. Affirmed. A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will notbeprinted in the Washington Appellate Reports, but itwill be filed for public recordpursuantto RCW 2.06.040.

WE CONCUR:

Lawrence-Berrey J.

6