### FILED 

### MAR05, 2013 In the Office oftheClerkofCourt W A State CourtofAppeals, Division III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISIONTHREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 30233-4-III ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) RICHARD SOLIZ, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. ) BROWN, J.

- Richard Soliz appeals his Yakima County second degree manslaughter conviction. He contends insufficient evidence supports his conviction because the State failed to disprove his self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Basedontherange ofsubstantial disputed evidence, we disagree. Pro se, Mr. Soliz contends insufficient deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testingwas accomplished and asserts prosecutorial misconduct, buthe fails to sufficiently elaborate for ourreview. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTS In February 2010, Mr. Soliz and his friend, OscarFlores Jr., went to a Yakimabar. Mr. Lemus-Vargas sat atthe bar stoolnexttoMr. Soliz. Mr. Lemus-Vargas askedMr.No. 30233-4-111 State v. Soliz
Solizto "watchhis back" because he was going to talkto several men that were sitting at
a nearby table. Report ofProceedings (RP) (Aug. 23, 2011) at 554-55. Mr. Soliz agreed, but nothinghappened and the men continued drinking together. When the bar closed, Mr. Lemus-Vargas offered to drive Mr. Soliz and Mr. Flores home because Mr. Soliz did not feel able to drive due to intoxication. Mr. Flores got into the backseat ofMr. Lemus-Vargas' carand Mr. Soliz got in the front passenger seat. Mr. Soliz noticed his interior door handle was not working. As they drove, Mr. Soliz asked Mr. Lemus-Vargas what he was talking aboutto the people at the bar. Mr. Lemus-Vargas became very upset, raised his voice, and told Mr. Soliz it was
none ofhis concern. Mr. Soliz claims Mr. Lemus-Vargas refused to let him out ofthe
car. When Mr. Lemus-Vargas stopped the car at a stop signMr. Flores got out ofthe back seat. Mr. Flores laterreported he wanted to get out ofthe carbecausehe had violated his probation conditions by being intoxicated and feared the police might stop the vehicle; he did not rememberhearing an argument betweenthe men in front. Accordingto Mr. Soliz, as he tried to get out ofthe driver's door, Mr. LemusVargas hit and stabbed him and he somehow musthave managed to get theknife away from Mr. Lemus-Vargas and stabbed him in self-defense. Mr. Lemus-Vargas was discovered by passers-by ana he was transported to the hospital, where he later died. The coroner's report indicated that Mr. Lemus-Vargas had a blood alcohol level of.28 and there was evidence ofcocaine and metabolized cocaine and alcohol in his system. Mr. 

### 2No.30233-4-III State 

### v. Soliz Lemus-Vargas had cuts on his ankle, lip, wrist and hairline, caused by a four inch knife. He also sustained a two-inch deep stab wound into the back ofhis shoulder, and four stab wounds onthe right side ofhis back. A knife was never located. Mr. Soliz left a blood trail to Mr. Flores' house where police found him. Police found bloody items belonging toMr. Solizhidden under a van. The State theorized thatbecause DNA tests did not show any blood from Mr. Soliz in the carbut considerable blood from Mr. Lemus-Vargas
was found there, Mr. Soliz self-inflictedhis wounds after the stabbing in orderto claim self-defense. The State charged Mr. Soliz with second degree murder. Mr. Soliz claimed selfdefense. Attrial, Mr. Soliz testified he believed Mr. Lemus-Vargas was going to kill him. Mr. Soliz sufferedbruises on the back ofhis head and shoulders, a cutto his leg, an abdominal stab wound, and bruises to his face and lefthand. The tendons in bothhands
were severed and were characterized by the forensic pathologist as "defensive wounds." RP (Aug. 25,2011) at 760. Mr. Soliz had no immediate or later recollection ofgetting the knife away from Mr. Lemus-Vargas or ofharming him. Dr. MarkMcClung, a psychiatrist, testified thathe interviewedMr. Soliz, reviewed discovery, conducted tests, and obtainedbackground information from family members aboutMr. Soliz. Itwas his opinion that Mr. Solizperceived the attackby Mr.

3No.30233-4-III State 

### v. Soliz
Lemus-Vargas as life-threatening, and as a result suffered from acute stress disorder at the time and later, post-traumatic stress disorder. A forensic examination ofMr. Lemus-Vargas' car revealed blood staining in and aroundthe driver's seat, as well as between the seat and door. Bloodwas found on the steering wheel, as well as on the console. In contrast, no blood staining was found on the passenger seat or in the front ofthe front passenger seat area. Analysis ofthe blood samples retrieved from inside the vehicle revealed that the DNA profile matched that ofMr. Lemus-Vargas. NoDNA evidence collected in the car showed any blood from Mr. Soliz, although he claimed to have bled "like a stuckpig." RP (August 24, 2011) at 632. Dr. Daniel Selove, the forensic pathologistwhoperformed the autopsy on Mr. Lemus-Vargas testified as to his observations and findings. He testified to the multiple stab wounds on Mr. Lemus-Vargasbody and that several were defensive wounds. Additionally, Dr. Selove had an opportunity to analyze photographs ofMr. Soliz's wounds and was ofthe opinion that those wounds would be consistent with several scenarios, including defensive wounds, butwould also be consistentwith a handwhich had been holdingthe knife slipping offthe handle, or self-inflicted wounds. Thejury found Mr. Soliz guilty ofthe lesser-included offense ofsecond degree manslaughter with a deadly weapon. Mr. Soliz appealed.

4No.30233-4-III State 

### v. Soliz
ANALYSIS A. Evidence Sufficiency 

### Mr. Soliz contends the State failed to satisfy its burden ofdisproving selfdefense beyond areasonable doubt. Instead, he argues the evidence establishedhe reasonably believed he was in imminent danger ofharm and was therefore entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself. In short, Mr. Soliz essentially asks us reassess the credibility of the testimony and other evidence. Thejury is charged with assessing the facts, not the court. Here, the evidence was legally sufficient to support thejury's verdict. Sufficient evidence supports a conviction if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier offact could have found the essential elements of the charged crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hosier, 157 Wn.2d 1, 8, 133 P.3d 936 (2006). On appeal, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor ofthe State and interpret them most strongly against the defendant. Id. In the sufficiency context, we consider circumstantial evidence as probative as direct evidence. State v. Goodman, 150 Wn.2d 774,781,83 P.3d 410 (2004). An appellate court will overturn ajury verdict "only when itis clearly unsupported by substantial evidence." Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wn.2d 93, 108,864P.2d 937 (1994). Substantial evidence is "sufficient evidence to persuade a rational, fairmindedperson ofthe truth ofthe premise." WestmarkDev. Corp. v. City ojBurien, 140 Wn. App. 540, 557, 166 P.3d 813 (2007). Thepresence ofconflicting evidence, without 

### 5No. 30233-4-111 

### State 

### v. Soliz

more, does not undermine ajury's verdict. When reviewing the evidence, an appellate court does not "reweigh the evidence, draw its own inferences, or substitute itsjudgment for thejury." 

### Id. A person is gUilty ofsecond degree manslaughter when he or she causes the death ofanotherperson through his or her criminal negligence. RCW 9A.32.070(1). A person acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware ofa substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware ofsuch arisk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard ofcare that a reasonable person would exercise in that

. situation. RCW 9A.08.0 10(1)(d). Criminal negligence can also be established ifthe

person acted recklessly. RCW 9A.08.01O(2). A person acts recklessly when he or she disregards a known substantial riskthat a wrongful act may occur and the disregard of such a risk is a gross deviation from the standard ofcare that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation. RCW 9A.08.010(l)(c). In defense ofmanslaughter, a defendant may allege self-defense. A defendant may lawfully use force in self-defense if(1) the defendant subjectively feared that he or she was in imminent danger ofharm from the victim, (2) this beliefwas objectively reasonable, (3) the defendant exercised no greater force than was reasonably necessary, and (4) the defendant was not the aggressor. 

### State v. 

### Callahan, 87 Wn. App. 925,929, 943 P.2d 676 (1997). Once the defendantproperly raises the issue, the State must

6No. 30233-4-III State 

### v. Soliz disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862, 215 P.3d 177 (2009). According toMr. Soliz, he and Mr. Lemus-Vargas had an argument in the car. Mr. Flores, however, did not hear an argumentbefore he exited the vehicle. According to Mr. Soliz, he then observedMr. Lemus-Vargas had a knife and tried to get it away from him. The forensic pathologisttestified that Mr. Lemus-Vargas had cuts on his ankle, lip, wrist and hairline with a two-inch deep stab wound intothe back ofhis shoulder, and four stab wounds on the right side ofhis back. A forensic examination ofMr. Lemus-Vargas'
carrevealed blood staining in and around the driver's seat, as well as between the seat and door. There was blood onthe steering wheel, as well as on theconsole. In contrast, there was no blood staining on the passenger seat or in the front ofthe front passenger seat area. DNA analysis ofblood samples retrieved from inside the vehicle matched Mr. Lemus-Vargas; none matched Mr. Soliz who claimed he was stabbed in the carand bled like a stuck pig. Dr. Selove, the forensic pathologist whoperformedthe autopsy on Mr. Lemus-Vargas, testified that.several ofMr. Lemus-Vargas' wounds were defensive wounds. Dr. Selove had an opportunity to analyze photographs ofMr. Soliz's wounds and was ofthe opinion that those wounds couldhave possibly been self-inflicted. Based on the above, sufficient evidence exists to support thejury's finding that Mr. Soliz was guilty ofsecond degree manslaughter. While he alleged self-defense, the State satisfied its burden ofdisproving selfdefense beyond a reasonable doubt. It was 7No.30233-4-III State v. Soliz within thejury'sprovince to weigh the disputed evidence, draw inferences, and decide witness credibility. The presence ofconflicting evidence, without more, does not undermine ajury's verdict. 

### B. Statement ofAdditional Grounds (SAG) Without elaboration, Mr. Soliz asserts in his SAGthat he was denied a fair trial because insufficient DNA testing was done and the prosecutor deliberately misled the jury. RAP lO.lO(c)provides, "Referenceto the record and citation to authorities are not necessary or required, butthe appellate court will not consider a defendant/appellant's statement ofadditional grounds for review ifit does not inform the court ofthe nature and occurrence ofalleged errors." Because Mr. Soliz does not explain whatDNA evidence was nottested orinsufficiently tested and does not explain what State argument
was allegedly misleading, his claims are too vague for us to address. Affirmed. A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will not beprinted in the Washington Appellate Reports, butit will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040. Brown, 

### J. WE CONCUR:
Korsmo, C.l 

### 8