2 {11=-1 frAl 13 ' 00 S. y k . tlVJ-

11':'. r' iM DE t 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

v. LANE J. SMITH, DIVISION II
Respondent,

Appellant. No. 45757 -1 - II

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

WORSWICK, P.J. — Lane J. Smith was convicted of second degree possession of stolen 

### property' following abench trial. Smith appeals his conviction arguing thatthe State did not present sufficient evidence to prove that he knowingly possessed or disposed ofstolen property. Because sufficient evidence supports the conviction, we affirm. FACTS 

### Smith lived in a rental home with Teresa Dundom, Teresa' s daughter Teri Dundom,2 and Teri' s boyfriend Jose Ayala. The rental home' s garage was locked with a padlock. Smith and 

### Teresawere the only two people with a keyto the garage. The garage was considered offlimits to others in the home, and no one was allowed inside the garage except for Smith and Teresa.

1 See RCW 9A.56. 160. 

### 2 For clarity,we referto Teresa Dundom and Teri Dundom bytheirfirst names. We intend no disrespect.No. 45757 -1 - II 

### On November 30, 2012, Smith received a text message from Robin Lavin, asking Smith 

### to help Lavin move atrailer. Smith agreed to help Lavin. Smith towed the trailerwith his pickup truck and stored the trailer in his garage. On December 1, 2012, Deputies Ryan Tully and Ronald Davis ofthe Pacific County Sheriff's Office executed a search warrant, based on an unrelated case, at Smith' s rental home. 

### Teresawas the only person home at the time the warrantwas executed. When the police 

### searched the garage they noticed the trailer inside had a licenseplate that did not match the trailer' s vehicle identification number. The license plate and the trailer were registered to two different people. The police seized the trailer and the items contained inside it. While searching the garage, the police also noticed and took pictures of several remote controlled model airplanes. The police did not seize the airplanes. When Smith returned home on December 1, he 

### found a copy ofthe search warrant on his kitchen table withthe list ofitems thatwere seized, including the trailer. On December 3, the police returned to Smith' s residence to arrest him on an unrelated 

### outstanding warrant. On December 5, and after further investigation, the police contacted Bruce Graham and verified that the contents ofthe trailer and the model airplanes had been stolen from his residence while he was on vacation. The model airplanes were never recovered from Smith's garage or returned to Graham. The State charged Smith with first degree possession of stolen 

### property3 for possessing the contents ofthe trailer and second degree possession ofstolen property for possessing the model airplanes.
3See RCW 9A.56. 150.

2No. 45757 -1 - II



### Smith waived his rightto ajury trial. At the bench trial, Deputy Davis testified that when he placed Smith under arrest for the warrant on December 3, Smith asked him " ifthat was all that he [ was] 

### being arrested for." Report of Proceedings ( RP) ( Oct. 17, 2013) at 30. Davis read Smith his Miranda4 rights and took him to the South Bend Police Department. At the police 

### department, Smith was again read his Miranda rights and initially agreed to talkto police.

The South Bend Chief of Police, David Eastham, was present while Davis questioned Smith at the police department. Davis noticed that Smith appeared to be " very nervous." RP Oct. 17, 2013) at 41. Smith told Davis that he was the renter ofthe house and thatthe garage on 

### the propertywas offlimits to the other people living with him. Additionally, Smithtold Davis that he was notthe person who stole the items in the garage butthat theywere being stored there and he would talkto Davis about howthe items got there. Smith also told police that he wanted to talk but he did not want to be known as a " snitch." RP ( Oct. 17, 2013) at 43. Eastham 

### testified that he overheard Smith say he did notwantto be known as a " snitch" and that he
wasn' t allowing people in or out ofthe garage." RP (Aug. 13, 2013) at 21. Smith then changed 

### his mind and asked for an attorney, and at that pointthe questioning stopped. Davis testified that based on this conversation, he believed Smith knew that the items in his garage were stolen. Davis also testified that, while at Smith' s residence on December 3, Teri had told him 

### that she saw Smith and Lavin use Smith's truckto pull the trailer up to the garage. Teri also told 

### Davis that Smith said the garage was offlimits after he and Lavin put the trailer in the garage. 

### Teri additionallytold Davis that she had seen Smith remove items from the garage afterthe police had seized the trailer on December 1. 4Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 ( 1966).
3No. 45757 -1 - I1 

### Smith testified that when he learned that the trailer had been seized by police, he became 

### angry" because atthat point he knew ifthe police seized it,it had to have been stolen. RP (Oct. 17, 2013) at 84. Smith also testified that he did not want to give the police Lavin' s name because he did not want to be known as a " snitch." RP (Oct. 17, 2013) at 91. Graham testified that the value of the model airplanes was well over $750. 

### During its closing argument,the State argued that though the trailer had been returned to Graham, the model airplanes had been 

### retained and disposed ofby Smith. 

### The trial court found Smith not guilty offirst degree possession ofstolen property, but found Smith guilty ofsecond degree possession ofstolen property, regarding the model airplanes. The trial court entered findings offact and conclusions of law, including:

9. After execution of the search warrant, the defendant was aware that the items brought to the residence were stolen: this included the model planes .... The defendant indicated to law enforcement on December 3, 2012 that he did not want 

### to be asnitch by revealingthat Mr.Lavinwas the source ofthe stolen property. At trial the defendant indicated that the knowledge that the items were stolen began upon seeing the warrant return. 10. After execution ofthe search warrant,the defendant retained possession and disposed of the model airplanes. He did these acts on or about December 1, 2012 in Raymond, Washington. 11. The defendant did the acts described in paragraph 10 with the intention of 

### depriving their true owner ofhis property. 12. 

### Thetestimony ofthe State'switnesses was credible. The testimony ofboth South Bend Police Chief Eastham and Deputy Ron Davis ofthe Pacific County Sheriff's Office that the defendant knew the items were stolen, that he was very nervous when contacted on December 3, 2012, that he knew his arrest was for more than awarrant before law enforcement indicated so, and revealing the source ofthe property would make him a " snitch," 

### aswell as thetestimony ofMr.Bruce Graham regarding the value ofthe stolen propertywere all particularly credible[.] Suppl. CP at 23 -24. Smith appeals.No. 45757 -1 - II ANALYSIS



### Smith challenges the sufficiency ofthe State' s evidence supporting his conviction for second degree possession ofstolen property. Specifically, Smith argues thatthe State " proffered 

### insufficient evidence to prove that he knowingly possessed or disposed ofstolen property or that he acted with knowledge that the property was stolen." Br. ofApp. at 11. Smith also argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had exclusive dominion and control over the garage after the police served the search warrant. Smith challenges the trial court' s findings of fact that ( 1) Smith was aware the model airplanes were stolen, (2) Smith did not want to reveal Lavin as the source ofthe stolen property, (3) Smith retained possession ofthe model airplanes 

### and disposed ofthem, and (4) Smith had the intent ofdepriving the owner ofhis property. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW When, as here, atrial court enters findings offacts and conclusions oflaw following a bench trial, we determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings, and ifso, whether the findings support the conclusions oflaw. State v. Stevenson, 128 Wn. ' App. 179, 193, 114 P. 3d 699 (2005). Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair - minded, rational

person of the 

### finding' s truth. Stevenson, 128 Wn.

### App. at 193. We consider unchallenged findings offact verities on appeal. Stevenson, 128 Wn.

### App. at 193. We review conclusions of 

### law de novo. Stevenson, 128 Wn.App. at 193. A claim ofinsufficiency admits the truth ofthe State' s evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 ( 1992). All reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor ofthe State and interpreted

most strongly against the defendant." Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201. Circumstantial evidence and

5No. 45757 -1 - II



### direct evidence are deemed equally reliable. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 1980). We defer to the fact finder's resolution ofconflicting testimony, witness credibility, and 

### persuasiveness ofthe evidence. State v. O'Neal, 126 Wn.App. 395, 424, 109 P.3d 429 (2005). To convict Smith ofsecond degree unlawful possession ofstolen property,the State had to prove that Smith ( 1) knowingly possessed or disposed of stolen property, (2) acted with knowledge that the property had been stolen, (3) withheld or appropriated the propertyto the use 

### ofsomeone other than the true owner, and (4) that the stolen property exceeded $750 in value. RCW 9A.56. 140( 1); RCW 9A.56. 160( 1)( a). II. FINDINGS OF FACT Smith argues that insufficient evidence supports the trial court' s findings offact. We 

### disagree. Thetrial court found the testimony ofthe State' s witnesses credible and that testimony 

### provides substantial evidence supporting the trial court's findings offact. Smith argues that the trial court failed to find that he had exclusive dominion and control over the garage, and as such, someone else could have accessed the garage. The trial court' s 

### finding offact 6 statesthat Smith did have dominion and control overthe garage andthere is substantial evidence to support this finding. Deputy Davis testified , that Smith said the garage 

### was offlimits to the other people living with him. ChiefEastham also testified that Smith said that he was not allowing people in or out ofthe garage. This testimony provides substantial 

### evidence sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Smith had dominion and control over 

### the garage forthe purpose ofpossession. And, contraryto Smith's apparent assertion, dominion and control does not need to be exclusive to support afinding ofconstructive possession. State

6No. 45757 -1 - II

v. Chavez, 138 Wn.App. 29, 34-35, 156 P. 3d 246 (2007) (

### citing State v. Weiss, 73 Wn.2d 372, 375, 438 P.2d 610 ( 1968)); 

### State v. Wood,45 Wn.App. 299, 312, 725 P.2d 435 ( 1986)).

Smith argues the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knew the model airplanes

were in the garage. 

### Smith does not challenge the trial court' s finding thathe did possess the
model airplanes in his garage on December 1. The police left the model airplanes in the garage 

### after seizing thetrailer on December 1, and Davis testifiedthatTeri told him Smith had gone into the garage at that time. A reasonable inference can be made that Smith knew the model airplanes were in the garage because he went inside the garage while the model airplanes were also inside. 

### Smith challenges the trial court's finding that he knewthe model airplanes in the garage were stolen. Davis testified that Smith indicated to him that Smith knew the items being stored in his garage were stolen. Davis also testified that Smith told him that he was not the person
who stole the items but they were being stored in his garage." RP ( Oct. 17, 2013) at 33. Because the trial court found the testimony ofDavis credible, particularly the testimony that Smith knew the items in his garage were stolen, a reasonable inference can be made that Smith knew that the model airplanes were stolen. 

### Smith challenges the trial court' s finding that he retained possession and disposed ofthe
model airplanes after December 1. Again, Davis testified that he left the model airplanes in the garage when the police seized the trailer. Davis also testified that Teri told him she saw Smith 

### removing items fromthe garage afterthe police seized the trailer. A reasonable inference can be made that Smith retained possession ofthe model airplanes when the police left them in the 

### garage after seizing the trailer. A reasonable inference can also be made that Smith disposed of

7No. 45757 -1 - II



### the model airplanes when Teri saw him taking items out ofthe garage the same daythe trailer

was seized. 

### Smith also challenges the trial court' s finding that he knowingly possessed the model 

### airplanes with the intent to deprive the true owner ofhis property. As stated above, it can be 

### reasonably inferred that Smith retained possession ofthe model airplanes in the garage, thathe knewtheywere stolen, and that he disposed ofthem. In light ofthese inferences, it is also reasonable to infer that Smith committed those acts with the intent to deprive the true owner of his property. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The findings offact supportthe trial court' s conclusions oflawthat Smith (1) wrongfully possessed and disposed of stolen property, (

### 2) knewthat property to be stolen, and (3) intended to deprive the true owner ofpossession ofthat property. 

### Finding offact 10, supported by substantial evidence, states that Smith retained possession and disposed ofthe model airplanes. This finding supports the conclusion that Smith 

### wrongfully possessed and disposed ofstolen property. Findings offact 9 and 12, supported by substantial evidence, state that Smith was aware that the items brought to the garage were stolen, 

### including the model airplanes, andthatthe State'stestimonywas credible, particularlythe testimony ofDavis, stating that Smith knewthe items were stolen. These findings supportthe conclusion that Smith knewthe model airplanes were stolen. Finding offact 11, supported by substantial evidence, states that Smith possessed and disposed ofthe model airplanes with the 

### intent ofdepriving theirtrue owner ofhis property. This finding supports the conclusion that Smith intended to deprive the true owner of his property.No. 45757 -1 - II Substantial evidence supports the trial court' s findings offact and the findings offact support the conclusion that Smith is guilty ofsecond degree possession ofstolen property. Therefore, sufficient evidence supports Smith' s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm. 

### A majority ofthe panel having determinedthatthis opinion will notbe printed inthe Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

We concur:
Maxa, J.

Lee, J.

9 Worswick, P.J.