- c-.- c; 

## tfjiUKtf ^u •"

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. JIMMY JAMES THOMPSON, Appellant. No. 73842-9-1 DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: November 14, 2016 

### Spearman, J. — Evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guiltif, when 

### viewed in the lightmostfavorable to the State, it supports a rationaljury'sfinding that each element of the charged offense has been proved beyond a reasonable 

### doubt. Here, Jimmy Thompson was convicted of theft of a motorvehicle. On 

### appeal, he argues that thecircumstantial evidence presented at histrial is insufficientto support the guiltyfinding. We disagree and affirm. FACTS 

### On themorning ofMay 6, 2015, electrician Kennan Southworth reported to ajobsite at 4300RooseveltWayNortheast, Seattle, in hisworkvan. Southworth worked for Pride Electric. His white van had a blue and red stripeNo. 73842-9-1/2 down the side with "Pride Electric" in blue and red letters.1 VRP at 17. At around 

### 3:00 a.m., he arrived at thejobsite, parked his van outside, and went inside the 

### building. In the next two hours, he went back and forth to his van multiple times. He locked the van each time he went back inside the building. At around 5:15 a.m., Southworth returned to his van after being inside the 

### building for about two minutes. He saw that his van was gone. Southworth turned around and saw the van drive southbound on Roosevelt Avenue. He called his 

### boss to report that the vehicle was missing, and then called 911 to report the stolen van to police. 

### Seattle Police Officers Joel Gingrey and Jason Hoppers were several 

### blocks awayin theirpatrol car. They received the report of the missing vehicle at 5:19 a.m. They immediately began searching in the area close to where the van 

### had been parked. Theofficers found it in the 900blockof 42nd Street, which was only a few blocks away from Southworth'sjobsite. 

### Two people were standing next to the van. Upon the arrival ofthe police car, both of them immediately jumped over a fence and fled. Officer Hoppers 

### exited thepatrol caryelling, "'[sjtop, police'" andpursued Thompson onfoot. VRP at 108. OfficerGingrey remainedin the patrol car and drove around the block. 

### Officer Hoppers observed Thompson run andjump overseveralfences.At5:25 a.m., Officer Hoppers detainedThompson a couple ofblocks awayfrom where 

### he was initially seen nextto the van.. The other person was neverfound.

1All verbatim reportofproceeding (VRP) citations are to theJuly 21, 2015proceedings, unless otherwise noted.No. 73842-9-1/3 

### AfterThompson was incustody, Officers Hoppers and Gingrey returned to the Pride Electric van. Itwas running even though there was no key in the ignition. Someone had pried open the driver's side door lock and removed the plastic around the ignition. The sliding door was open and there were tools on the 

### ground. A Honda was parked next to the van with its engine running. It had Pride Electric tools on its front seat. Thompson was charged with theft of a motorvehicle, and inthe alternative, possession of a stolen vehicle. Thejury was instructed that they could find Thompson guilty as either a principal or an accomplice. Thejury convicted Thompson oftheft of a motor vehicle. DISCUSSION 

### Thompson argues thatthe evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for theft of a motor vehicle. Evidence is sufficientwhen, viewed in the light most 

### favorable to the State, itsupports a rational fact finder's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992) 

### (citingState v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216-222, 616 P.2d 628 (1980)). A claim of insufficiency admits the truth ofthe State's evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201. On review, circumstantial 

### and direct evidence carry equal weight. State v. Goodman, 150 Wn.2d 774, 781, 83 P.3d 410 (2004) (citing State v, Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618P.2d 99 (1980)). The trial court instructed thejury thatto convictThompson ofmotor 

### vehicle theft, the State was required to prove the elements ofthat crime beyond aNo. 73842-9-1/4 

### reasonable doubt. Aperson commits motor vehicle theft if he wrongfully obtains

or exerts unauthorized control over the motor vehicle of another with intent to 

### deprive the other person ofthe vehicle. RCW 9A.56.020(1)(a); RCW 9A.56.065. Thejurywas also instructed thatThompson could be found guiltyas a principal
or as an accomplice. An accomplice to a crime is legally accountable for the conduct ofanother person. RCW 9A.08.020. An accomplice is someone who, "[w]ith knowledge that itwill promote or facilitate the commission ofthe crime
... [ajids or agrees to aid such other person in planning or committing it." RCW 9A.08.020(3). A person who is present at the scene and ready to assist is aiding the commission of the crime. State v. Robinson, 35 Wn. App. 898, 903, 671 P.2d 256 (1983). But the State must show more than mere presence and knowledge ofthe criminal activity ofanotherto establish that a person is an accomplice. State v. Rotunno. 95 Wn.2d 931, 933, 631 P.2d 951 (1981). The evidence submitted at trial shows that Southworth called 911 about two minutes after the van was stolen. Within minutes ofthat call, Thompson and 

### another individual were seen standing on each side ofthe vanjusta few blocks from where the theft occurred. There were no other people nearby. The van's 

### engine was running and the sliding door was open. Immediately upon seeing the officers, Thompsonjumped over a fence and fled. He continued to flee after Officer Hoppers yelled, "'stop, police.'" Six minutes afterthe van was reported stolen, Thompson was detained. The lock on the van's driver side door showed 

### signs that it had been opened by force. The ignition also showed signs of force. Tools and equipmentbelonging to Pride Electric were on the ground next to theNo. 73842-9-1/5 

### van and inside a Honda, which was parked alongside the van with itsengine running. 

### The shorttimeframe, proximity ofThompson to the van and to the location 

### of the theft, the condition of the van and the placement ofthe stolen tools, as well


### as hisflight from the scene, allsupport a reasonable inference that Thompson
was involved inthe theft as eithera principal or an accomplice. Viewing the evidence inthe light mostfavorable to the State, a rational trier offact could find the elements of motorvehicle theft beyond a reasonable doubt. Thompson submits a statement ofadditional grounds under RAP 10.10, in which he raises two issues. The first issue relates to the actions of his defense counsel and the second to his lack of opportunity to testify. But because these claims are based on facts or evidence not in the record before us, we cannot considerthem. The claims may be properly pursued in a personal restraint petition, but not in a statement ofadditional grounds. State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 569, 192 P.3d 345 (2008). Costs on Appeal 

### Thompson argues thatwe should not impose appeal costs against him because he is indigent. The State argues thatthere is insufficient information about Thompson's financial situation to decline to impose appeal costs. Appellate courts may require an adult offender convicted ofan offense to 

### pay appellate costs. RCW 10.73.160(1). The commissioneror clerk will award costs to the State ifthe State is the substantially prevailing party on appeal, 

### "unless the appellate court directs otherwise in its decision terminating review."No. 73842-9-1/6 

### RAP 14.2. Adetermination of a criminaldefendant's indigency is entrusted to the trialjudge whose finding ofindigency we respect unless we are shown good

cause notto do so. State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380, 393, 367 P.3d 612 

### review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1034, 377 P.3d 733 (2016). We "give a party the benefits of an order of indigency throughout the review unless the trial courtfinds the party's financial condition has improved to the extent that the party is no longer indigent." RAP 15.2(f). The State argues thatwe should abandon the approach set out in Sinclair because the order of indigency does not have sufficient information about Thompson's future ability to pay. However, Sinclair makes clearthat during trial 

### and sentencing, both parties have access to information about "the defendant's 

### age, family, education, employment history, criminal history, and the length of the current sentence" that influence the State's discretionary decision to seek costs. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. at 391-92. Here, the trial court issued an orderfinding Thompson indigent and 

### authorizing him to appeal in forma pauperis. The trial court has not found that his financial condition has improved or is likely to improve. We therefore presume 

### thatThompson remains indigent. Thompson's sentence isforty-three months. He 

### has felony convictions which may limit his ability to find employment in the future. He owes $1,274.45 in legal financial obligations. The State does not point to 

### anything in the record suggesting thatThompson's financial condition is likely to improve. Underthese circumstances, we conclude that an award ofappellate costs to the State is not appropriate.No. 73842-9-1/7
Affirm.

WE CONCUR: 

# AaQT \)<s/fv\f/*\ U%