State v. Garcia-Aparicio
| Decision Date | 28 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 37899-3-III |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JAIME GARCIA-APARICIO, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Jaime Garcia-Aparicio appeals convictions for first degree robbery and first degree burglary, challenging both on sufficiency of evidence grounds. Alternatively, having initially been found incompetent to stand trial and held in custody for 46 days awaiting competency restoration treatment, he argues that the charges against him should be dismissed with prejudice as a remedy for that deprivation of his right to substantive due process.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence for both convictions was sufficient. Mr. Garcia-Aparicio's right to substantive due process was violated by the delay in admitting him for competency restoration treatment, but he provides no legal authority or persuasive argument that dismissal of the charges without prejudice following trial is an appropriate remedy. We affirm.
On a summer day in 2019, Jaime Garcia-Aparicio walked into a gas station convenience store in Wenatchee, selected a six-pack of beer, and brought it to the cashier's counter. Shelly Anderson, the store manager, rang up the beer and put it in a bag as Mr. Garcia-Aparicio appeared to try, unsuccessfully to use the credit card machine, pushing buttons and "fumbling with it." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 102.[1]Ms. Anderson explained to Mr Garcia-Aparicio that the machine was for credit cards, to which Mr. Garcia-Aparicio responded that the machine contained his personal information and he needed to get it out. As Mr. Garcia-Aparicio made that odd statement, Ms Anderson noticed he was "rocking back and forth a little bit," contributing to her conclusion that he might be inebriated and she ought not sell alcohol to him. RP at 85.
Ms Anderson pulled the bagged beer away from him and told him he was going to have to buy beer somewhere else. At that point, he tried to grab the bag and as Ms. Anderson later described it at trial, "[W]e had a tug of war with the beer." RP at 87. He succeeded in grabbing one of the bottles, tearing off part of the bag as well. He pulled off its cap and threw the cap at her. When she turned and reached for the store phone to call the police, he threw the bottle at her. It hit her hard enough to break. Mr. Garcia-Aparicio then came around to the cashier's side of the counter, followed Ms. Anderson as she sought to retreat, and began hitting her.
As he continued to hit her, he was distracted when a metal water bottle he had brought into the store and had set on the counter fell to the ground. When he stepped aside to get it, Ms. Anderson ran out of the store. He chased her, now armed with his water bottle. He struck her once on the head with the water bottle and continued to pursue her until an arriving customer was able to distract and restrain him.
The State charged Mr. Garcia-Aparicio with robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, later amending the complaint to allege a deadly weapon enhancement.
On August 21, 2019, defense counsel moved the court to order a competency evaluation of Mr. Garcia-Aparicio. The trial court entered the requested order the same day. Dr. David Medved, a licensed psychologist, conducted a two-hour interview of Mr. Garcia-Aparicio at the Chelan County Jail on September 16. Based on that interview and review of jail records and four earlier competency evaluations of Mr. Garcia-Aparicio, Dr. Medved prepared a 10-page report dated October 1, 2019. He diagnosed Mr. Garcia-Aparicio with schizophrenia and concluded that while Mr. Garcia-Aparicio had the capacity to understand the proceedings against him, he lacked the capacity to assist in his own defense. Dr. Medved recommended that Mr. Garcia-Aparicio be committed to Eastern State Hospital for 90 days for competency restoration treatment.
On October 7, the trial court ordered the recommended 90-day competency restoration treatment. Mr. Garcia-Aparicio was not admitted to Eastern State Hospital until 46 days later, on November 22.
Mr. Garcia-Aparicio's competency was successfully restored. The court later ordered a diminished capacity evaluation, and after Mr. Garcia-Aparicio waived his right to a jury trial, the matter proceeded to a bench trial at which Mr. Garcia-Aparicio asserted a diminished capacity defense.
Ms. Anderson testified at trial about Mr. Garcia-Aparicio's dealings with her and her injuries. She testified that when Mr. Garcia-Aparicio realized she was refusing to sell him the beer, he "physically struggled" with her over the six-pack. RP at 87. She also testified that when he threw the bottle he had seized at her, he threw it "really hard." RP at 90. Surveillance videos from inside and outside the store that captured Mr. Garcia-Aparicio's actions were offered and admitted.
Several officers testified to being dispatched to the scene, where they found Mr. Garcia-Aparicio being physically restrained by the man who had managed to deflect his attention from Ms. Anderson.
Mr. Garcia-Aparicio testified that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2009 and takes antipsychotic medication daily. He testified that on the day of the alleged offenses, he took his medication with breakfast and later consumed cannabis and 24 ounces of an 8.1 percent alcoholic beverage. He testified he was thinking clearly until around 11 a.m. that day, after which he does not remember anything until around 6:30 p.m., when he woke up in the back of a police car.
A defense expert testified to his opinion that at the time of the offense conduct, Mr. Garcia-Aparicio was experiencing a psychotic episode and was incapable of forming the intent required for the crimes with which he was charged. The State called its own expert to testify in rebuttal.
The trial court found Mr. Garcia-Aparicio guilty of both charges but found that for purposes of the deadly weapon enhancement alleged by the State, he was not armed with a deadly weapon. He appeals.
Mr Garcia-Aparicio challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. Alternatively, he seeks dismissal without prejudice of the State's charges as a remedy for the 46 days he was in custody awaiting competency restoration treatment. We address his challenges in the order presented.
Mr. Garcia-Aparicio challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he committed first degree robbery and, in that connection, assigns error to the trial court's finding of fact that he "intended to commit theft of property." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 38.
To convict Mr. Garcia-Aparicio of robbery, the State had to prove that with the intent to commit theft, he unlawfully took personal property from Ms. Anderson against her will by use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury. RCW 9A.56.190; State v. Sublett, 156 Wn.App. 160, 188, 231 P.3d 231 (2010) (). "Theft" means "[t]o wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property . . . of another . . . with intent to deprive . . . her of such property." RCW 9A.56.020(1)(a). To prove robbery in the first degree, the State had to prove that Mr. Garcia-Aparicio was armed with a deadly weapon, displayed what appeared to be a deadly weapon, or inflicted bodily injury during the commission of the robbery or immediate flight therefrom. RCW 9A.56.200.
When evidence sufficiency is challenged, we determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Vasquez, 178 Wn.2d 1, 7, 309 P.3d 318 (2013). "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).
Mr. Garcia-Aparicio's evidence sufficiency challenge focuses on the element of intent to commit theft. Courts do not infer criminal intent unless the conduct "'plainly indicates such intent as a matter of logical probability.'" Vasquez, 178 Wn.2d at 14 (quoting State v. Bergeron, 105 Wn.2d 1, 20, 711 P.2d 1000 (1985)). A reviewing court may draw inferences from the record but may not speculate or make "'arbitrary assumption[s].'" Id. at 16 (quoting Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 232, 31 S.Ct. 145, 55 L.Ed. 191 (1911)). Intent may be inferred by a defendant's conduct and surrounding circumstances if such intent is logically probable, but not if the evidence is patently equivocal. Id. at 8.
Mr. Garcia-Aparicio contends the State's evidence proved only that he intended to damage the store's merchandise, not that he intended to steal it. This, he argues, constitutes malicious mischief, but not theft. The crime of malicious mischief includes "caus[ing] physical damage to the property of another" in an amount exceeding $750, or, where the damage is in a lesser amount, "[k]nowingly and maliciously causing physical damage to the property of another." RCW 9A.48.070(1)(a), .080(1)(a), .090(1)(a).
In orally delivering its findings and conclusions, the trial court stated it could not recall "ever having a case where what happened was so vividly presented to the Court because we happened to have the complete video of start to finish lacking only, of course, the audio." RP at 280. It commented that the video showed "pretty clearly" that Ms. Anderson had the beer in her possession when Mr. Garcia-Aparicio reached across the counter and was able to remove, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial