DocketNumber： 69692-1
Filed Date： 3/10/2014
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 10/30/2014
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON t. • DIVISION ONE CS> —4 C- STATE OF WASHINGTON, w —n No. 69692-1- O Respondent, v.94 Wn.2d 216 , 221,616 P.2d 628(1980) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307, 319,99 S. Ct. 2781,61 L. Ed. 2d 560(1979)). A claim of insufficient evidence admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn from it. State v. Salinas,119 Wn.2d 192, 201,829 P.2d 1068(1992). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence. State v. Vermillion,66 Wn. App. 332, 342,832 P.2d 95(1992). Vieau argues that the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because no one saw him take the wallet and there were other people in the church that day. This argument ignores substantial evidence that he had both the motive 1A person is guilty of second degree theft "if he or she commits theft of. . . [a]n access device." Former RCW 9A.56.040(1)(c) (2009). An access device is defined as "any card, .. . account number, or other means of account access that can be used ... to obtain money, goods, services, or anything else of value." RCW9A.56.010(1). 3 No. 69692-1-1/4 and opportunity to take the wallet, that he acted dishonestly when he told Cunningham his wife was in the hospital and took her money, and that he exhibited guilty knowledge when he hurriedly exited the church. Viewed in a light most favorable to the State, this evidence, and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it, were sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Vieau committed the offense. Vieau also argues that his judgment and sentence should be remanded to correct a scrivener's error. Specifically, he contends the statutory provision under which he was charged, RCW 9A.56.040(1)(c), proscribes the theft of metal wire, not access devices. Although that statute was amended after Vieau's offense, the version of the statute in effect when he committed his offense proscribed theft of an access device. See former RCW 9A.56.040(1)(c) (2009). That version of the statute controls. State v. Snedden,166 Wn. App. 541, 543,271 P.3d 298(2012). There was no scrivener's error. Affirmed. FOR THE COURT: MAi