State Of Washington, V. Keaton Drew Taylor

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: June 30, 2026
• Docket: 60126-5
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

June 30, 2026

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 60126-5-II

Respondent,

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION KEATON DREW TAYLOR,

Appellant.

VELJACIC, C.J. — Keaton D. Taylor appeals his unlawful possession of a firearm in the

first degree conviction. He contends that the State failed to prove that he possessed the firearm

found in the trunk of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The State concedes that it failed to

make this showing. We accept the State’s concession and remand to the trial court to vacate the

conviction and resentence Taylor on his remaining conviction.

FACTS1

Police contacted Taylor when he was the passenger in his brother’s vehicle. The contact

was based on a report that Taylor’s brother pointed a gun at someone.

Police obtained a search warrant for the vehicle. Officers located a backpack in the trunk

of the vehicle. The backpack contained Taylor’s social security card, a photocopy of his driver’s

1 The following facts rely on the trial court’s findings of fact following Taylor’s bench trial, which are unchallenged and therefore verities on appeal. State v. Johal, 33 Wn. App. 2d 408, 412-13, 561 P.3d 1235, review denied, 4 Wn.3d 1028 (2025). 60126-5-II

license, and a professional certificate in Taylor’s name. The backpack also contained numerous

blue pills consistent with fentanyl, a baggie with heroin that was approximately one ounce, digital

scales, baggies, and other drug paraphernalia. Also in the trunk, underneath both the backpack

and a black tarp, was a loaded 12 gauge shotgun.

The State charged Taylor with possession of a controlled substance with intent to

manufacture or deliver and unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree.

Taylor entered a drug court program. Taylor agreed to several terms, including that if

terminated from drug court then the trial court would determine the issue of guilt solely upon a

summary of the facts presented in police reports, declarations, witness statements, and other

scientific reports.

Taylor was not successful in drug court. The trial court terminated his participation and

moved forward with a stipulated bench trial.

Taylor was found guilty of both counts as charged. Based on an offender score of 9+, the

trial court sentenced Taylor to 90 months on both counts to run concurrently.

Taylor appeals.

ANALYSIS

Taylor contends that the State failed to prove that he possessed the firearm found in the

trunk of the vehicle. The State concedes that it failed to make this showing. We accept the State’s

concession.

Evidence to support a conviction is sufficient if, when viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Bergstrom, 199 Wn.2d 23, 40-41, 502 P.3d 837 (2022). In arguing that the evidence is

2 60126-5-II

insufficient, the defendant admits the truth of the State’s evidence and all reasonable inferences

drawn from that evidence. Id. at 41.

RCW 9.41.040(1)(a)(i)2 states that “[a] person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of

the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree[,] . . . if the person . . . possess[es]

. . . any firearm after having previously been convicted . . . of any serious offense.” Taylor does

not dispute that he had previously been convicted of a serious offense. Talyor disputes whether

there was sufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed the firearm found in his brother’s car.

To be guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, possession must be “knowing.” State v.

Anderson, 141 Wn.2d 357, 366, 5 P.3d 1247 (2000). Either actual or constructive possession can

constitute knowing possession. State v. Chouinard, 169 Wn. App. 895, 899, 282 P.3d 117 (2012).

Here, the State sought to prove Taylor’s guilt by constructive possession. Constructive

possession occurs where a defendant exerts dominion and control over an item. State v. Listoe, 15

Wn. App. 2d 308, 326, 475 P.3d 534 (2020). Whether a person has dominion and control is

determined by the totality of the circumstances. Id. While proximity to the item may be

considered, this factor alone is not sufficient. Id. at 327.

In Chouinard, 169 Wn. App. at 897, the defendant rode in the backseat of a car as a

passenger. He knew a firearm was behind the backseat. Id. at 898. However, evidence was

insufficient to prove constructive possession because there were multiple other occupants and there

was no evidence Chouinard was in control of the car or firearm. Id. at 900-03.

Similarly, here, there were multiple occupants in the vehicle and there was no evidence

Taylor had control of the car or firearm located in the trunk. The vehicle belonged to his brother.

The shotgun was located underneath both Taylor’s backpack and a tarp.

2 We cite the current statute as the relevant language has not changed.

3 60126-5-II

While Taylor’s backpack was located near the firearm that does not show he had control

over an item outside the backpack and inside another person’s vehicle. Accordingly, the evidence

was insufficient to prove constructive possession.

CONCLUSION

Because the State failed to prove all elements of unlawful possession of a firearm in the

first degree, we accept the State’s concession. We vacate the conviction and remand for the trial

court to dismiss with prejudice Taylor’s unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree

conviction and to resentence him on his remaining conviction.

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.

Veljacic, C.J.

We concur:

Lee, J.

Che, J.