State Of Washington v. Sean T. Phillips ( 2016 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
November 22, 2016
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 48593-1-II
Respondent,
V.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SEAN T. PHILLIPS,
Appellant.
WORSWICK, J. — Sean Phillips appeals his conviction for attempting to elude a pursuing
police vehicle. Phillips contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to prove that he
was the driver of the eluding vehicle. We hold that sufficient evidence supports the jury’s
verdict, and affirm.
FACTS
On September 21, 2015, Washington State Trooper Kyle Dahl was on patrol duty in his
unmarked police car. Officer Dahl observed a vehicle speeding at 57 miles per hour in a 35
miles per hour speed limit zone. Officer Dahl followed the vehicle around a corner and activated
his sirens, vehicle lights, and in-dash camera. Officer Dahl signaled the driver to pull over and
the driver stopped his vehicle and pulled over. As Officer Dahl approached the vehicle on foot,
the driver accelerated and fled the scene.
Officer Dahl returned to his vehicle and began pursuit. The chase reached speeds of 70
miles per hour. After failing to negotiate a turn, the driver crashed into shrubs in a yard. The
driver exited the vehicle and began to run away on foot. After a short foot pursuit, the driver
stopped running and submitted to arrest by Officer Dahl.
No. 48593-1-II
The State charged Sean Phillips with attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle and
first degree driving while license suspended. The charging information identified the defendant
as “Sean T. Phillips, Age 37; DOB: 04/12/1978.” Clerk’s Papers at 1.
At trial, the State called Officer Dahl, who testified to the above facts. Additionally, the
State asked Officer Dahl to confirm whether he recalled having contact with “the defendant,
Sean Phillips” on the day of the chase; Officer Dahl responded in the affirmative. Verbatim
Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Dec. 9, 2015) at 97. During cross-examination, defense counsel
questioned Officer Dahl about his interaction with “Mr. Phillips” and questioned the officer
about “Mr. Phillips’[s] vehicle” in reference to the vehicle that Officer Dahl pursued on the night
of the incident. VRP (Dec. 9, 2015) at 122.
The jury convicted Phillips of attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle and driving
while license revoked. Phillips appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Phillips argues that the State produced insufficient evidence to prove he committed an
attempt to elude a pursuing police vehicle. Specifically, Phillips contends that the State failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the driver of the eluding vehicle. We disagree.
A. Legal Principles
In determining whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction, we view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether any rational trier of fact could
have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d
102, 105, 330 P.3d 182 (2014).
2
No. 48593-1-II
In addition to proving the elements of the particular offense, the prosecution must also
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the person who committed the offense.
State v. Hill, 83 Wn.2d 558, 560, 520 P.2d 618 (1974). Identity is a question of fact for the jury
and the jury should evaluate all relevant facts that may establish the identity of the person who
committed the offense. Hill, 83 Wn.2d at 560.
B. Identification
Phillips does not argue that the state failed to meet its burden to prove that the crime of
eluding was committed. Phillips argues only that the State failed to prove that Phillips was the
driver of the eluding vehicle. Phillips argues that because Officer Dahl did not “point to the
defendant in the courtroom and identify him,” and because the officer did not describe the
physical appearance of the driver or vehicle, nor describe the age, race, or clothing of the driver,
that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Phillips was the driver. Br. of
Appellant at 3.
While Phillips is correct that none of the State’s witnesses expressly identified him in
court, taken in the light most favorable to the State, ample evidence supports a finding that
Phillips was the driver of the vehicle.
Officer Dahl testified that he was in contact with “the defendant, Sean Phillips,” on
September 21, 2015. VRP (Dec. 9, 2015) at 97. During his testimony, Officer Dahl used the
words “defendant” and “Mr. Phillips” interchangeably when referring to the pursuit and the
subsequent arrest of the driver of the vehicle. VRP (Dec. 9, 2015) at 102-03.
Phillips was present in the courtroom during the entire trial and did not question the
numerous references to Phillips as both the defendant and as the driver of the vehicle. From this
3
No. 48593-1-II
evidence, a jury could reasonably infer that the Mr. Phillips referred to during trial as the
defendant and as the driver of vehicle was the same Mr. Phillips that was sitting at the defense
table. Consequently, sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict.
II. APPELLATE COSTS
Phillip additionally requests that, if the State substantially prevails in this appeal, that we
decline to impose appellate costs on him because he claims he is indigent. The State in response
asserted it would not seek costs on appeal. We exercise our discretion to decline to impose
appellate costs.
Under RCW 10.73.160(1), we have broad discretion in determining whether to grant or
deny appellate costs to the prevailing party. State v. Nolan, 141 Wn.2d 620, 628, 8 P.3d 300(2000); State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380, 388, 367 P.3d 612, review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1034(2016). Ability to pay is an important factor in the exercise of that discretion, although it is not
the only relevant factor. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App at 389.
The trial court found that Phillips was indigent. We presume a party remains indigent
“throughout the review” unless the trial court finds otherwise. RAP 15.2(f). RCW 10.73.160(1)
vests the appellate court with discretion to award appellate costs. Under RAP 14.2, that
discretion may be exercised in a decision terminating review. We exercise our discretion and
hold that an award of appellate costs to the State is not appropriate.
This evidence is sufficient to show that Phillips was the driver of the vehicle.
Consequently, sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict.
We affirm.
4
No. 48593-1-II
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 in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Worswick, J.
We concur:
Maxa, A.C.J.
Sutton, J.
5