Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Williamson

April 7, 1997

STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESPONDENT,
v.
TYRONE LAVON WILLIAMSON, APPELLANT.



Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 94-1-06951-5. Date filed: 03/06/95. Judge signing: Hon. Robert Alsdorf.

Petition for Review Denied October 7, 1997,

Authored by Susan R. Agid. Concurring: Faye C. Kennedy, Mary K. Becker.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Agid

AGID, J. -- Tyrone Williamson appeals his convictions for first degree rape, first degree burglary, second degree robbery and taking a motor vehicle without permission. He contends that the trial court incorrectly calculated his offender score and improperly admitted cumulative evidence regarding fingerprint identification and hearsay. He also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction based on accomplice liability. We conclude otherwise and affirm.

FACTS

Early on July 22, 1994, Regina Hanforth awoke while it was still dark to find an unknown man covering her mouth and telling her to do as he said.

The assailant raped her, covered her with a blanket and instructed her not to move while he explored other rooms in the house. When he returned, he searched her bedroom for money, took her ring from her hand and took the keys to her truck. Shortly after he left, Hanforth heard her truck drive out of the parking lot. When she was certain the intruder was gone, Hanforth got up and ran to her father's apartment. Her father called the police at about 5:35 a.m. Hanforth returned to her apartment with police, who noticed that a patio door had been pried open and a plastic chair had been moved up against a window which they determined was the point of entry. A number of items, including Hanforth's VCR, had been stolen.

When Ryan McDonald, Hanforth's fianc, returned home in response to her call, he saw her truck pulling out of a neighboring apartment complex.

Officer Mary Priebe, the first officer to arrive at the scene, immediately left to search for the truck. At about 6:15 a.m., Officer Priebe spotted the truck at the intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 252nd.

When she made eye contact with the driver, a small black man, he suddenly changed lanes and she lost sight of him. At a lineup two months later, she identified a different man as the likely driver. Officer Lonnie Arnold was also dispatched to the area to search for the vehicle. Shortly after he learned that Officer Priebe had spotted the truck in the area, Officer Arnold saw a black male who matched the description of the suspect walking along the side of the road a couple of blocks away. Officer Arnold also made eye contact with the man but, in the time it took him to make a U-turn, the man disappeared. At a lineup some months later, Officer Arnold identified Williamson as the man he had seen that morning.

Hanforth was never able to positively identify anyone as her attacker but was able to describe him as a slender African-American man about 5'6" in height who she thought was in his 20s. Williamson is a 35-year-old African-American who is 5'6" tall and weighs 165 pounds. Latent fingerprint examiners identified two fingerprints found at the scene of the crime as Williamson's. One was obtained from the back of the chair that had been moved up against the window at the point of entry and the other was found on a white box inside Hanforth's truck. Although her attacker made statements that referred to an accomplice, Hanforth did not see or hear anything that suggested there was someone else in her apartment during the attack.

Williamson was arrested a few days later in connection with a different burglary in a nearby apartment building. The police questioned him about this incident but he denied any involvement. When it was determined that his fingerprints matched two of those that had been recovered at Hanforth's apartment, the State charged him with first degree rape, first degree burglary, second degree robbery and taking a motor vehicle without permission. At the Conclusion of trial, a jury found Williamson guilty on all four counts.

Discussion

I. Offender Score

Williamson first contends that the trial court erred in calculating his offender score based on its finding that he was on community placement at the time he committed the crimes. *fn1 Under the Sentencing Reform Act, one point is added to the defendant's offender score if "the present conviction is for an offense committed while the offender was under community placement." RCW 9.94A.360(18). According to RCW 9.94A.030(5), "community placement" means that period during which the offender is subject to the conditions of community custody and/or postrelease supervision, which begins either upon completion of the term of confinement (postrelease super-vision) or at such time as the offender is transferred to community custody in lieu of earned early release. Community placement may consist of entirely community custody, entirely postrelease supervision, or a combination of the two.

RCW 9.94A.170 requires that community placement be tolled in the following circumstances:

(1) A term of confinement, including community custody, ordered in a sentence pursuant to this chapter shall be tolled by any period of time during which the offender has absented him or herself from confinement without the prior approval of the entity in whose custody the offender has been placed. A term of partial confinement shall be tolled during any period of time spent in total confinement pursuant to a new conviction or pursuant to sanctions for violation of sentence conditions on a separate felony conviction.

(2) A term of supervision, including postrelease supervision ordered in a sentence pursuant to this chapter shall be tolled by any period of time during which the offender has absented himself or herself from supervision without prior approval of the entity under whose supervision the offender has been placed.

(3) Any period of supervision shall be tolled during any period of time the offender is in confinement for any reason. However, if an offender is detained pursuant to RCW 9.94A.207 *fn2 or 9.94A.195 and is later found not to have violated a condition or requirement of supervision, time spent in confinement due to such detention shall not toll [the] period of supervision.

(4) For confinement or supervision sentences, the date for the tolling of the sentence shall be established by the entity responsible for the confinement or supervision.

The relevant dates and events are as follows:

June 1, 1992 Released from prison to begin 1 year community placement.

Aug. 7, 1992 Escaped from community custody.

Aug. 18, 1992 Apprehended and returned to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.