Opinion ID: 2624860
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Locklear

Text: Locklear's contention is that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing his conviction on constitutional grounds rather than for insufficiency of the evidence. His position, in this regard, is significantly different from that of Rodgers' because Locklear was properly charged in the amended information with the crime of drive-by shooting. The Court of Appeals' failure to address his sufficiency of the evidence claim, he argues, deprives him of his just remedy on appeal. Br. of Cross Pet'r at 8. If the evidence against Locklear was not sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that he was guilty of drive-by shooting, then he is correct in asserting that the Court of Appeals erred in not addressing the issue. That is so because [i]f there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction, the Double Jeopardy Clause requires reversal and remand for judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Br. of Cross Pet'r at 5 (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17-18, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978)). Furthermore, it is a well-established rule of judicial restraint that the issue of the constitutionality of a statute will not be passed upon if the case can be decided without reaching that issue. State v. Peterson, 133 Wash.2d 885, 894, 948 P.2d 381 (1997) (Talmadge, J., concurring). A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is obviously not a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute. As we have observed above, the facts in State v. Locklear were all set forth in a stipulation that was agreed to by the State and Locklear and these facts were adopted by the trial court in its findings of fact. As noted above, these findings of fact are unchallenged. When findings of fact are unchallenged, they are verities on appeal. City of Seattle v. Muldrew, 69 Wash.2d 877, 878, 420 P.2d 702 (1966). Notwithstanding the absence of a challenge to findings of fact, when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged the appellate court must still determine whether the unchallenged findings of fact support the trial court's conclusions of law. State v. Aitken, 79 Wash.App. 890, 893, 905 P.2d 1235 (1995). RCW 9A.36.045(1) defines the crime of drive-by shooting as a reckless discharge of a firearm in a manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person and the discharge is either from a motor vehicle or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm, or both, to the scene of the discharge. Neither immediate area nor scene of discharge is defined in the statute. State v. Locklear, 105 Wash.App. 555, 557, 20 P.3d 993 (2001). It is apparent from the stipulation and the trial court's findings of fact that Locklear did not discharge a firearm from a moving or parked vehicle. Indeed, the trial court made no such conclusion. The more pertinent question is whether the findings are sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that Locklear discharged a firearm from the immediate area of Ishaq's vehicle. If Locklear's culpability could be established merely by showing that he discharged a firearm from the area of Ishaq's motor vehicle or from the area of town that her vehicle was located in, then it might be said that the evidence supports Locklear's conviction. The drive-by shooting statute is, however, more narrowly drawn and requires the State to produce evidence that the firearm was discharged by the defendant from the immediate area of the vehicle which transported the shooter. It seems obvious that one is not in the immediate area of a vehicle that is parked two blocks away from the place where that person discharges a firearm. That is the case we have here and, thus, we have no difficulty saying that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's conclusion of law that Locklear was guilty of drive-by shooting. In making this determination, we find it helpful to accord the term immediate its dictionary definition, which Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines as existing without intervening space or substance ... being near at hand: not far apart or distant. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1129 (1986). Similarly, Black's Law Dictionary defines immediate as [n]ot separated in respect to place; not separated by the intervention of any intermediate object. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 749 (6th ed.1990). In sum, we are satisfied that the trial court's findings of fact do not support its conclusion that Locklear was in the immediate area of Ishaq's motor vehicle when he discharged a firearm into Vela's house. Thus, his conviction for drive-by shooting cannot stand. Having said that, we quickly add that Rodgers' acts were reprehensible and undoubtedly contravene other statutes not before this court. His acts do not, however, run afoul of the statute on which the charge against him was based. In our view, the legislature aimed this relatively new statute [2] at individuals who discharge firearms from or within close proximity of a vehicle. Undoubtedly, it was concerned that reckless discharge of a firearm from a vehicle or in close proximity to it presents a threat to the safety of the public that is not adequately addressed by other statutes. A person discharging a firearm two blocks away from a vehicle cannot be said to be in close proximity to that vehicle. To conclude otherwise would be akin to attempting to shove a square peg into a round holeit does not fit.