Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                       No. 66824-2-I
                                                 )         (consolidated with
                      Respondent,                )         No. 66825-1-I1)

              v.                                 )         DIVISION ONE
                                                 )
U.R.,                                            )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
B.D. 3/25/95,                                    )
                                                 )
                      Appellant.                           FILED: March 5, 2012
                                                 )
                                                 )

                                                 )

                                                 )

       Appelwick, J.  --  U.R. appeals his conviction for theft in the third degree, 

arguing there was insufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt 

that he was the perpetrator.  We hold that there was sufficient evidence to 

support the conviction, and affirm.

                                        FACTS

       Katie  Osiadacz was working as a barista at the Cowgirls  Pink Spot.  

       1 These cases were consolidated below, and a single order of disposition 
was filed.  No. 66824-2-I is the appeal of King County Superior Court cause no. 
10-8-02304-8, robbery in the first degree.  No. 66825-1-I is the appeal of King 
County Superior court cause no. 10-8-03967-0, theft in the third degree. 

No. 66824-2-I/2

While attending to a customer, she heard a noise behind her near the drive 

through window.  She saw a teenage male wearing a red shirt, later identified as

U.R., near the drive-through window placing an estimated $80 from the cafe's tip 

jar into his backpack.  A second teenage male, later identified as I.W.,  was 

standing just behind U.R., wearing a white tee shirt.  Osiadacz ran towards them 

and told them to stop as they turned to flee with the money.  She chased after 

them, and I.W. paused momentarily to look back at her.  U.R. then yelled, "Come 

on," and they ran off.

       Osiadacz went back inside and called the police.  Police responded to the 

scene within five or ten minutes, but could not initially find anyone matching the 

description she gave.  A few hours later, officers received a tip about the 

suspects' whereabouts, approximately four blocks from the Pink Spot.  The 

suspects detained there matched the general description Osiadacz had given.  

Officers then drove Osiadacz to the scene, where she positively identified them 

as the males involved in the Pink Spot theft.  She stated the suspects had on the 

same clothes they had worn during the theft.  Officers discovered approximately 

$70 in small bills on I.W.  U.R. admitted to being with I.W. near the Pink Spot at 

the time of the theft, but denied any involvement.  

       U.R. was charged with theft in the third degree.  U.R. and I.W. were also 

identified by a victim who was robbed on the same day, approximately one block 

away from the Pink Spot.  The theft charge was tried before a judge with a 

charge of the robbery in the first degree, and the judge found U.R. guilty on both 

counts.

                                           2 

No. 66824-2-I/3

       U.R. timely appealed.  

                                    DISCUSSION

       U.R. argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for 

theft in the third degree.  The State must prove each element of the charged 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1, 13, 904 P.2d 

754 (1995).  Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewed in the light 

most favorable to the State, it permits a rational trier of fact to find the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Montgomery, 163 

Wn.2d 577, 586, 183 P.3d 267 (2008).  "A claim of insufficiency admits the truth 

of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be 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 the persuasiveness of the evidence.  State v. Fiser, 99 Wn. App. 

714, 719, 995 P.2d 107 (2000).  

       U.R. admitted to being in the area during the theft, but contends the court 

convicted him based solely on his proximity to the scene, without the State 

establishing his identity as the thief.  He claims Osiadacz's testimony did not 

prove that U.R. was the thief because she gave conflicting accounts as to what 

type of red top the thief was wearing.  A log from the 911 dispatcher said the 

suspect who took the money was wearing a red jacket, but at trial Osiadacz was 

very clear that she remembered both seeing and reporting that the suspect was 

wearing a red shirt.  U.R. also points to Osiadacz's uncertainty about whether 

the red shirt the suspect was wearing was a tee shirt or a sweatshirt, and 

                                           3 

No. 66824-2-I/4

whether it had distinct lettering.  

       Osiadacz witnessed the theft, she provided a general description of the 

thief, and U.R. matched that general description.  U.R. was found near the scene 

and admitted to being present at the scene with I.W. during the theft.  And, after 

U.R. was detained later in the day, Osiadacz immediately identified him as the 

person who took the money and stated he was wearing the same clothes he had 

worn during the theft.  Additionally, U.R.'s accomplice, I.W. was found with a 

wad of cash consistent with the money stolen from the tip jar.  U.R.'s 

insufficiency argument admits the truth of this evidence.           See Salinas, 119 

Wn.2d at 201.    The trial court did not simply rely on U.R.'s mere proximity to the 

scene to support the conviction.  The evidence provides proof beyond                   a 

reasonable doubt that U.R. was the person responsible for committing the theft.  

We reject U.R.'s insufficiency of the evidence argument and affirm.

       U.R. also submitted a pro se statement of additional grounds.  The issues 

he raises relate not to his theft conviction but to his conviction for robbery in the 

first degree.  He broadly argues there was insufficient evidence to support his 

robbery conviction.  And, he supports his argument primarily by disputing the 

credibility of the robbery victim, N.W., asserting his that his testimony contained 

contradictions.  N.W.'s testimony formed the central basis for the robbery 

conviction.  As addressed above, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

admits the truth of the State's evidence, and all reasonable inferences must be 

drawn in favor of the State and interpreted against the defendant.  Salinas, 119 

Wn.2d at 201.  And, while U.R. may dispute N.W.'s credibility or version of the 

                                           4 

No. 66824-2-I/5

facts, matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, conflicting testimony, and 

the persuasiveness of the evidence are the exclusive province of the trier of fact.  

State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990); State v. Stewart, 

141 Wn. App. 791, 795, 174 P.3d 111 (2007).  Accordingly, U.R.'s argument in 

his Statement of Additional Grounds also fails.

WE CONCUR:

                                           5