Personal Restraint Petition Of: Jimmy Newsom

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
May 29, 2019
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In the Matter of the No. 52763-4-II
Personal Restraint of
JIMMY NEWSOM,
Petitioner.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MAXA, C.J. – Jimmy Newsom seeks relief from personal restraint imposed as a result of
his 2016 conviction for first degree unlawful possession of a firearm.1 He argues that the State
failed to present sufficient evidence that he possessed a firearm. We disagree.
The test for determining sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Homan, 181 Wash. 2d 102, 105, 330 P.3d 182 (2014). In a
sufficiency of the evidence claim, the defendant admits the truth of the State’s evidence and all
reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. Id. at 106.
A person can have actual possession or constructive possession of an item. State v.
Reichert, 158 Wash. App. 374, 390, 242 P.3d 44 (2010). Actual possession requires physical
custody of the item. Id. Constructive possession occurs when a person has “dominion and
control” over an item. Id.
Here, Vancouver Police Officer Ron Stevens saw Tyler Lawhead chasing Newsom on
foot. Stevens later located the two men. According to Stevens, Lawhead told him that Newsom
1
We issued the mandate of Newsom’s direct appeal on November 20, 2018, making his December
17, 2018 petition timely filed. RCW 10.73.090(3)(b).
No. 52763-4-II
had a small gun. At trial, Lawhead denied telling Stevens that Newsom had a gun, but he
admitted that he told Stevens that there might have been a gun because Newsom had gestured
toward his waistline as if he had a gun. Lawhead also said that he had seen something shiny at
Newsom’s waistline. Officer Robert Schoene arrested Newsom on an outstanding warrant.
After placing Newsom in a patrol car, Schoene noticed a black and silver gun on the ground
where Newsom had entered the patrol car.
This evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found beyond a reasonable
doubt that Newsom had had possession of the firearm found on the ground and therefore was
guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm.
CONCLUSION
Newsom does not present grounds for relief from restraint. Therefore, we deny his
petition.
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.
MAXA, C.J.
We concur:
WORSWICK, J.
MELNICK, J.
2