Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                       DIVISION  II

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                             No.  36799-8-II

                             Respondent,

       v.

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM SIEYES,                                UNPUBLISHED OPINION

                             Appellant.

       Hunt, J.  --  Christopher William Sieyes appeals his juvenile guilty adjudication for second 

degree unlawful possession of a firearm.  In his original appeal, he raised four issues, including 

whether RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii)  violated his constitutional right to bear arms.  See  State v. 

Sieyes, 168 Wn.2d 276, 280-81, 225 P.3d 995 (2010).  Our Supreme Court accepted review of 

that issue, rejected Sieyes's argument because of insufficient briefing on the constitutional issue,1

and remanded back to us to consider Sieyes's remaining arguments2: (1) Substantial evidence 

does not support one of the juvenile court's factual findings; (2) the evidence is insufficient to 

1 Ultimately, the only issue our Supreme Court decided was whether the Second Amendment 
applied to the states "via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause."  Sieyes, 168 Wn.2d at 
279-80.

2 Sieyes, 168 Wn.2d at 296. 

No.  36799-8-II

support the guilty adjudication; and (3) the State had, and failed to meet, the burden of disproving 

the statutory  exceptions allowing persons under 18 to possess firearms under certain 

circumstances as provided in RCW 9.41.042.  See Sieyes, 168 Wn.2d at 281 n. 3.  We affirm.

                                            FACTS

                           I.  Traffic Stop and Discovery of the Gun

       At about 11:25 am, on April 26, 2007, Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff Jon Vangesen

stopped a vehicle for speeding.  Vangesen observed three people in the vehicle.  Just before the 

speeding vehicle stopped, Vangesen saw the front passenger, 17-year-old Christopher William 

Sieyes, "reach to the front floorboard, passenger floorboard of the car with his right hand as he 

twisted his body towards the floorboard."  Verbatim Report of Proceedings (Aug. 1, 2007) at 29.  

Concerned for his safety, Vangesen approached the stopped vehicle from the  passenger side,

opened the passenger side door, and ordered Sieyes out of the vehicle;  Sieyes complied.  

Vangesen did not see anything on the floorboards when Sieyes was inside the vehicle.

       After patting down Sieyes, Vangesen returned to the open  passenger's side door and 

talked to the driver, Jacob Cole Lawing, and the backseat passenger, Janay Michelle Schnabel.  A 

minute or two later, Vangesen looked under the passenger seat and noticed a loaded .380 caliber 

handgun "touching . . . the front framework of the seat," resting against a "small ledge" that was 

apparently part of the passenger seat "framework."  VRP (Aug. 1, 2007) at 31-32.  For the 

handgun to be accessible from the backseat, the backseat passenger would have to reach about a 

foot and a half under the seat and over a "ridge."  VRP (Aug. 1, 2007) at 33.

       Vangesen seized the handgun, walked to the back of the vehicle, handcuffed Sieyes, and 

                                               2 

No.  36799-8-II

ordered Lawing and Schnabel to keep their hands up and in view.  Vangesen then waited for 

backup to arrive before removing Lawing and Schnabel from the vehicle.3  After Lawing and 

Schnabel exited the vehicle, Vangesen found an empty .380 caliber shell casing on the backseat 

floorboard.  Vangesen did not see anything else on the floor near where Sieyes had been sitting.  

No one found any fingerprints on the handgun.

                                         II.  Procedure

       The State charged Sieyes with second degree unlawful possession of a firearm under 

RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii).4

                                            A.  Trial

       The State's witnesses testified as described above.  Several other witnesses testified on 

Sieyes's behalf.5

       Sieyes's half brother testified that (1) he had never seen Sieyes with a gun, and (2) he had 

3 Vangesen also arrested Lawing because he was driving on a revoked license and he had an 
outstanding arrest warrant for driving on a revoked license.

4 RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) provides:
              A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful 
       possession of a firearm in the second degree, if the person does not qualify under 
       subsection (1) of this section for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in 
       the first degree and the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or 
       her control any firearm:
       . . .
              (iii) If the person is under eighteen years of age, except as provided in 
       RCW 9.41.042[.]
The legislature amended RCW 9.41.040 in 2011, but these amendments are not relevant here.  
Laws of Washington 2011, ch. 193 §1.

5 Lawing asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and refused to testify.

                                               3 

No.  36799-8-II

seen Lawing with firearms in the past.  Sieyes's father testified that the family did not keep any 

guns in the home other than pellet guns and that he had never seen Sieyes with any other gun.  

Three witnesses testified that before April 26, they had seen Lawing with guns, including a .380 

caliber handgun that looked similar to the one Vangesen found in the vehicle.  Schnabel testified 

that the vehicle was cluttered, that she did not see a gun in the vehicle that day, and that she did 

not hear or see Lawing or Sieyes talking about or handling firearms that day.

       At no point during the proceedings did Sieyes assert that the State had the burden of 

disproving the statutory defenses established in RCW 9.41.042.6 Nor did any party present any 

6 RCW 9.41.042 provides:
       RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) shall not apply to any person under the age of eighteen 
       years who is:
              (1) In attendance at a hunter's safety course or a firearms safety course;
              (2) Engaging in practice in the use of a firearm or target shooting at an 
       established range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which 
       such range is located or any other area where the discharge of a firearm is not 
       prohibited;
              (3) Engaging in an organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or 
       participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses 
       firearms as a part of the performance;
              (4) Hunting or trapping under a valid license issued to the person under 
       Title 77 RCW;
              (5) In an area where the discharge of a firearm is permitted, is not 
       trespassing, and the person either: (a) Is at least fourteen years of age, has been 
       issued a hunter safety certificate, and is using a lawful firearm other than a pistol; 
       or (b) is under the supervision of a parent, guardian, or other adult approved for 
       the purpose by the parent or guardian;
              (6) Traveling with any unloaded firearm in the person's possession to or 
       from any activity described in subsection (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of this section;
              (7) On real property under the control of his or her parent, other relative, 
       or legal guardian and who has the permission of the parent or legal guardian to 
       possess a firearm;
              (8) At his or her residence and who, with the permission of his or her 
       parent or legal guardian, possesses a firearm for the purpose of exercising the 
       rights specified in RCW 9A.16.020(3); or

                                               4 

No.  36799-8-II

evidence relevant to these defenses.

                         B.  Adjudication of Guilt and Findings of Fact

       The juvenile court adjudicated Sieyes guilty of second degree unlawful possession of a 

firearm and issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Finding of Fact (FF) III stated:

              That during a safety search of the vehicle for weapons, Deputy Vangesen 
       found a hand gun underneath the seat where [Sieyes] had been sitting.  The gun 
       was found leaning against a ledge just under the front portion of the front 
       passenger seat, and, was located in an area that Deputy Vangesen saw [Sieyes] 
       reaching.  The gun was found more towards the front of the seat and was not 
       easily accessible from the rear seat.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 12 (FF III). Sieyes appeals.

                                          ANALYSIS

                                      I.  Sufficiency Issues

       Sieyes argues that substantial evidence does not support Finding of Fact III and that the 

evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.  We disagree.

                                    A.  Standard of Review

       When reviewing a challenge to evidentiary sufficiency, we view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the elements of 

the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 596-97, 888 P.2d 1105 

(1995),  cert. denied, 516 U.S. 843 (1995).  In reviewing a juvenile court adjudication, we 

determine whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact and, in turn, 

whether the findings support the conclusions of law.  State v. Alvarez, 105 Wn. App. 215, 220, 19 

              (9) Is a member of the armed forces of the United States, national guard, 
       or organized reserves, when on duty.

                                               5 

No.  36799-8-II

P.3d 485 (2001).  We treat unchallenged findings of fact as verities on appeal.  State v. Levy, 156 

Wn.2d 709, 733, 132 P.3d 1076 (2006).

       We review conclusions of law de novo.  Levy, 156 Wn.2d at 733.  A claim of insufficiency 

admits the truth of the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.  State v. 

Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).  We defer to the trier of fact on issues of 

conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and persuasiveness of the evidence.  State v.

Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874-75, 83 P.3d 970 (2004), abrogated in part on other grounds by 

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004).  

Circumstantial evidence is equally reliable as direct evidence.  State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179, 

201, 86 P.3d 139 (2004).

                                     B.  Finding of Fact III

       Sieyes first argues that substantial evidence does not support Finding of Fact III.  He 

contends that Vangesen's testimony showed that the handgun was not easily accessible from the 

front seat and that to access the handgun someone would "'have to go over this ridge and then 

push it another foot and a half into the backseat.'" Br. of Appellant at 6 (quoting VRP (Aug. 1, 

2007) at 33).  We disagree.

       We note that Vangesen did not see the handgun while Sieyes was in the passenger seat 

and that he (Vangesen) had to look  under the front passenger seat twice before finding it.  

Nevertheless, he did not testify that it was difficult to access the handgun from the front seat.  

Instead, he testified that the handgun was leaning against a "ridge" located "right at the front of 

the [front passenger] seat."  VRP (Aug. 1, 2007) at 32.  The portion of the testimony Sieyes 

                                               6 

No.  36799-8-II

quotes in his brief is Vangesen's description of what a person would have to have done to make 

the handgun accessible from the backseat of the vehicle, not how a person would have accessed

the  handgun from the front passenger's seat, where Sieyes had been sitting.  Vangesen's 

testimony supports Finding of Fact III.

                                     C.  Sufficient Evidence

       Sieyes next argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was in actual or 

constructive possession of the handgun or that his possession was "knowing." Br. of Appellant at 

8.  Although there was no direct evidence, such as fingerprints, showing that Sieyes had handled 

the handgun, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of his possession and knowledge.  As 

Vangesen was pulling over the vehicle, he observed Sieyes leaning over and reaching under the

front passenger seat, on which he was sitting, into the area where Vangesen later  found the 

handgun.  Vangesen also testified that he did not find anything else in this area.  Taken in the light 

most favorable to the State, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that 

Sieyes hid the  handgun under the front passenger seat, establishing that he knew he had the 

handgun and that he had possessed the handgun immediately before Vangesen stopped the 

vehicle.  Accordingly, this argument fails.

                            II.  Burden of Proof:  Statutory Defenses

       Sieyes next argues, for the first time on appeal, that the State had the burden of disproving 

the existence of RCW 9.41.042's statutory defenses to illegal possession of a firearm under RCW 

9.41.040(2)(a)(iii).  He contends that the burden of disproving all of these statutory defenses falls 

on the State because the offense at issue here, second degree illegal possession of a firearm, 

                                               7 

No.  36799-8-II

implicates his constitutional right to possess a firearm.7  Because Sieyes did not argue below that 

the State had the burden of disproving the enumerated statutory defenses, we will address this 

issue only if Sieyes can establish that it is a manifest error affecting a constitutional right.  RAP 

2.5(a). This he fails to do.

       An important first step in deciding whether to allow a new argument for the first time on 

appeal is to determine whether the alleged error affects a constitutional right.  State v Gordon, 

172 Wn.2d 671, 676-77, 260 P.3d 884 (2011); State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873, 880, 161 

P.3d 990 (2007), abrogated on other grounds by Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 

129 S. Ct. 2527, 174 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2009).  On direct review in the instant case, our Supreme 

Court held that Sieyes had failed to establish that a 17-year-old's right to bear arms "should be 

equal to that of an 18-year-old's."  Sieyes, 168 Wn.2d at 296.  Sieyes still fails  to offer any 

"convincing authority" establishing that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies equally 

to 17-year-olds.  See Sieyes, 168 Wn.2d at 296.  Therefore, Sieyes fails to establish that the issue 

he now attempts to raise for the first time on appeal affects a constitutional right.  Accordingly, 

we decline to reach this argument, which Sieyes failed to preserve for review and 

7 Sieyes does not argue that the State had burden of proof because the statutory defenses negated 
one or more element of the crime.  See State v. Box, 109 Wn.2d 320, 327, 745 P.2d 23 (1987) 
(State has burden of disproving a defense that negates one or more element of the offense).

                                               8 

No.  36799-8-II

fails to bring within the manifest constitutional error exception to the general rule requiring 

preservation of error.

       We affirm.

       A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so 

ordered.

                                                 Hunt, P.J.
We concur:

Van Deren, J.

Johanson, J.

                                               9