IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,

v.
ERICA MAY TOEBE,
Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 36322

- 8

- III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

P ENNELL , C. J.

— Erica Toebe appeals a deadly w eapon enhancement imposed in
relation to her conviction for second degree assault. We affirm.

FACTS

Ms. Toebe got into an argument with her roommate over a bar tab. The dispute
escalated into a physical altercation
, and culminated in Ms. Toebe clubbing her roommate 

### FILED MAY 12, 2020 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division IIINo. 36322

- 8

- III State v. Toebe

2 with a metal towel bar . Several of M s. Toebe’s blows lan ded on her roommate’s head

. The roommate sought help from some neighbors and was transported by ambulance to

the hospital

. At the hospital, the roommate was treated for : (1) a broken cheekbo ne requiring
reparative surgery
, (2) a cut to the head requiring six staples
, (3) a cut to the lip requiring

four stiches , and (4) bruising and swelling the face, eye area, arms and ankles. The
bruising was so severe it delayed reparative sur gery to the ch eekbone

. The State charged Ms. Toebe with one count of second degree assault wit h a
deadly weapon enhancement . A jury convicted her as charged. Ms. Toebe appeals.

Her challenges are limited to the deadly weapon enhancement.

ANALYSIS
A jury’s verdict on a d eadly weapon enhancement must be supported by sufficient

evidence. See State v. Sassen Van Elsloo , 191 Wn.2d 79 8, 825

- 26, 425 P.3d 807 (2018).

Th is standard is not onerous

. “A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State’s

evidence and all inferenc es that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.” State v. Salinas
,
119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).

T he State’s evidence was sufficient to prove the towel bar employed by Ms. Toebe
against her roommate was a deadly weapon . Washington’ s deadly weapon st atute listsNo. 36322

- 8

- III State v. Toebe

3 several instruments that are per se deadly weapons. R CW 9.94A.825. Included is “any
metal pipe or bar used or intended to be used as a club.” Id. The towel bar here met that

definition. Witne sses described the bar as being made from metal

. Ms. Toebe used the bar

to club the victim of her assault. It is irrelevant that the towel bar was not shaped like a
club or might not meet the dictionary definition of a club. The statute only requires the
bar or pipe be used like a club, not that it be a clu b. Th e uncontested evidence meets this

standard

. Even though Ms. Toebe’s second degree assault conviction required proof of a
deadly weapon, RCW 9A.36.021(1)(c), imposition of a deadly weapon enhancement

under RCW 9.94A.533(4) did not violate Ms. Toebe’s r ight against double jeopardy.

Our ca se law has long recognized the legislature ’s intent to increase punishment when a
defendant convicted of second degree assault (which can be committed in several ways)

is armed with a deadly weapon

. State v. Aguirre , 168 Wn.2d 350, 366 , 229 P.3d 669

(2010)

. No recent authority holds to the contrary. 1 Thus, there was no double jeopardy

violation. Id

.

1 Ms. Toebe’s citation to State v. Allen , 192 Wn.2d 526, 431 P.3d 117 (2018) is inapt. That case address ed the preclusive effect of a jury’s verdict as to sentence enhancements, not the validity of multiple punishments authorized by the jury’s ve rdict

.No. 36322

- 8

- III State v. Toebe

4 CONCLUSION
The judgment is a ffirm ed

. A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in

the Washin gton Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

_________________________________ Pennell
, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ Siddoway, J.

______________________________ Lawrence

- Be rrey, J.