State of Washington v. Terry Clark Osborne ( 2022 )

FILED
JANUARY 27, 2022
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 37779-2-III
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
TERRY CLARK OSBORNE, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
STAAB, J. — After a jury found Terry Osborne guilty of residential burglary, the
superior court imposed a mid-range sentence and a $5,000 “fine.” Mr. Osborne failed to
object, request a reduction, or assert indigency. On appeal, he contends that the fine was
an abuse of discretion. In his statement of additional grounds (SAG), Mr. Osborne
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, the trial court’s
ruling on the admissibility of his custodial statements, and the court’s failure to provide
jury instructions with its face mask policy.
We affirm Osborne’s conviction and sentence.
No. 37779-2-III
State v. Osborne
BACKGROUND
Terry Osborne was charged with residential burglary. At trial, the complaining
witness testified that she lives in Moses Lake, but owns a house in Ritzville where she
stores furniture and personal property, including a washer and dryer.
On April 3, 2020, a neighbor saw Mr. Osborne walking with a hand truck near the
house. A short time later, the witness heard a loud bang come from the back of the
victim’s house and saw Mr. Osborne walking down the sidewalk with the washing
machine on the hand truck. The neighbor notified the police. Within moments, an
officer contacted Osborne on the sidewalk. Osborne told the officer that “he was taking
[the washer] out of a friend’s house that was being cleaned out.” Report of Proceedings
(RP) (Beck) at 197. The officer and neighbor returned the washing machine to the
victim’s unlocked house, which they found in disarray with tracks in the grass and dirt
leading from the back door to the alley. The homeowner confirmed that the returned
washer was hers. The neighbor testified that a single man could move the washer “no
problem” with the dolly. RP (Beck) at 180. A jury found Mr. Osborne guilty of
residential burglary.
The trial court sentenced Mr. Osborne on September 28, 2020. The parties agreed
that with an offender score of 9.5, Mr. Osborne’s standard range was 63 to 84 months.
The State requested a high-end sentence of 84 months. Mr. Osborne and his attorney
requested a prison-based drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) sentence of 73.5
2
No. 37779-2-III
State v. Osborne
months. The State objected to the requested DOSA sentence, noting that Mr. Osborne
had a pending burglary charge in Grant County. In sentencing Mr. Osborne, the court
simply said: “74 months mandatory. LFOs, $5000 fine.” RP (Brittingham) at 49. The
State responded: “Has he had DNA[1] collected? Your Honor that’d be a total of $5,500
with a $5,000 fine and the $500 victim assessment. Mr. Scudder has indicated that
Defendant has had his DNA collected. So I’d ask the Court to strike the $100 DNA fee.”
RP (Brittingham) at 49. A week later, the court found Mr. Osborne indigent for purposes
of appeal.
ANALYSIS
A. SENTENCING
On appeal, Osborne contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing
a mandatory sentence and fine of $5,000. Mr. Osborne argues that the court’s use of the
word “mandatory” was vague and argues that if it reflects a belief that there was a
mandatory term of imprisonment or fine, the court’s sentence was based on untenable
grounds.
We consider the trial court’s imposition of legal financial obligations (LFOs) for
abuse of discretion. State v. Clark, 191 Wn. App. 369, 372, 362 P.3d 309 (2015). A
court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on untenable grounds or for
1
Deoxyribonucleic acid.
3
No. 37779-2-III
State v. Osborne
untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).
Residential burglary is a class B felony with a seriousness level of IV. RCW
9A.52.025(2); RCW 9.94A.515. Class B felonies carry a maximum sentence of
“confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of ten years, or by a fine in an
amount fixed by the court of twenty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and
fine[.]” RCW 9A.20.021(b). Unless otherwise provided by statute, “the court may
impose fines on adult offenders” on all sentences under this chapter up to $20,000 for
class B felonies. RCW 9.94A.550.
We agree with the State that Mr. Osborne’s failure to object waives any review on
appeal. RAP 2.5(a); State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 830, 344 P.3d 680 (2015). In this
particular case, an objection would have provided the court an opportunity to clarify any
confusion regarding its use of the term “mandatory.”
Nevertheless, we disagree with Mr. Osborne’s contention that the judge was
imposing a mandatory sentence. Instead, in context, it appears that the term “mandatory”
was used to clarify that the judge was rejecting the request for a DOSA sentence. The
term of incarceration was within the standard range. The fine was authorized by statute.
RCW 9A.20.021(b). Moreover, penal fines are not considered “costs” subject to a
financial screening for ability to pay. Clark, 191 Wn.2d at 375-76. And while the fine
amount was placed on a line in the judgment and sentence next to “other” instead of the
4
No. 37779-2-III
State v. Osborne
line in the form marked “fine,” it is clear from the prosecutor’s follow-up statement that
the court was imposing a penal fine. We find no abuse of discretion.
B. STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS
Osborne raises several issues in his statement of additional grounds (SAG). First,
he contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for residential
burglary.
Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed de novo. State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897,
903, 365 P.3d 746 (2016). Washington follows the standard of review for a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence as set out in Jackson v. Virginia.2 State v. Green, 94
Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence to prove the elements of an offense, we must determine “whether, after
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Jackson 443 U.S. at 319. The purpose of this standard of review is to ensure that the
fact-finder rationally applied the constitutional standard required by the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows for
conviction of a criminal offense only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson,
443 U.S. at 317-18.
2
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).
5
No. 37779-2-III
State v. Osborne
In claiming insufficient evidence, the defendant necessarily admits the truth of the
State’s evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d
192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). These inferences “must be drawn in favor of the State
and interpreted most strongly against the defendant.” Id. Further, we must defer to the
trier of fact to resolve conflicting testimony and evaluate the persuasiveness of the
evidence. State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990) (credibility
determinations cannot be reviewed on appeal). Direct and circumstantial evidence are
weighed equally. State v. Scanlan, 193 Wn.2d 753, 770, 445 P.3d 960 (2019).
“[I]nferences based on circumstantial evidence must be reasonable and cannot be based
on speculation.” State v. Vasquez, 178 Wn.2d 1, 16, 309 P.3d 318 (2013).
A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime therein,
he enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle. RCW 9A.52.025. Mr.
Osborne reasserts his trial argument that a person could not move a washing machine out
of the house in ten minutes. Mr. Osborne argues for the first time on appeal that an
unidentified accomplice entered the house, and he did not. Alternatively, he contends
that the washing machine had been moved out of the house by some unknown person at
some prior unknown time. Nothing in the record supports these theories. In contrast, the
record fully contains sufficient evidence, albeit predominantly circumstantial evidence, to
support the conviction.
6
No. 37779-2-III
State v. Osborne
Next, Osborne challenges the trial court’s ruling under CrR 3.5 that his statement
to law enforcement was not custodial and was voluntary. Osborne did not testify at the
3.5 hearing and did not object to the trial court’s findings or conclusion. For the first
time on appeal, Osborne suggests that when the officer walked up to him on the sidewalk,
he felt scared, intimated, and detained. He asks us to reweigh the evidence and reverse
the findings and conclusions as to noncustodial statements. By failing to object, Osborne
waived the issue on appeal. RAP 2.5(a). Even so, we find no error from this record.
Osborne’s final argument is that the trial court’s jury instructions did not include
its directive on removing masks while speaking. Mr. Osborne’s attorney requested that
jury members, during voir dire, be allowed to remove their face masks. RP (Beck) at 17.
In consideration of the “orderly conduct of the trial,” the trial court provided verbal
permission to the parties, their attorneys, the witnesses, and the jury that they were free to
remove their COVID-193 masks when speaking, but the court “will not require them to
do so.” RP (Beck) at 18. Mr. Osborne’s attorney later commented, “I was going to do it
for the voir dire, but I didn’t do it.” RP (Beck) at 123. The trial court responded: “But I
did notice that most people did take off their masks to answer the questions.” Id. The
trial court reiterated the permission for witnesses. RP (Beck) at 25. On one of the trial
days, Mr. Osborne’s counsel “forgot to bring that up,” and the court indicated that it
3
Coronavirus Disease.
7
No. 37779-2-III
State v. Osborne
would be done the next day. RP (Beck) at 123. The trial court did not include the issue
in the written jury instructions.
We decline to consider this issue because Osborne fails to support his contention
with legal authority or analysis and raises the issue for the first time on appeal. RAP
2.5(a); RAP 10.3.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
_________________________________
Staab, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
Pennell, C.J.
_________________________________
Siddoway, J.
8