Robert Freedman challenges the deadly weapon enhancement portion of his judgment and sentence for second degree assault, claiming there was insufficient evidence to find that the aluminum bat he used in the assault qualified as a deadly weapon. In his Statement of Additional Grounds, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree with both claims and affirm.
Freedman and Anthony Lemon worked together for a number of year? longshoremen. One day in August 2011, both men left work around the same-time in their vehicles. Freedman testified that he wanted to talk to Lemon aboat a recent incident at work.
At a stoplight on Elliott Avenue in Seattle, Freedman got out of his car and walked to the driver side window of Lemon's van. A UPS truck driver, who was stopped behind Freedman's car, testified that it appeared that Freedman and Lemon were in a verbal argument. At one point, Lemon got out of his van and
Freedman went back to his car to grab an aluminum bat. The men eventually got back into their vehicles and drove into a nearby parking lot.
In the parking lot, an eyewitness called 911 when he saw Freedman get out of his car with an aluminum bat and approach Lemon. This witness testified that Freedman struck Lemon approximately six times with the bat before law enforcement arrived on the scene.
Lemon testified that he suffered welts and bruises, and he had to go to the emergency room because of pain and swelling. He also had to see a surgeon because of a torn bicep muscle.
The State charged Freedman with second degree assault. It also alleged the Freedman used a deadly weapon for the purpose of a deadly weapon enhancement.
A jury convicted Freedman as charged, including the deadly weapon allegation.
DEADLY WEAPON ENHANCEMENT
Freedman argues that the deadly weapon enhancement must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to establish that the aluminum bat qualified as a deadly weapon. We disagree.
Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it permits any rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. "A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom." Matters pertaining to credibility of witnesses, conflicting ...