State Of Washington, V. Richard Joyner

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: March 24, 2025
• Docket: 86063-1
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 86063-1-I Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION RICHARD WILLIAM JOYNER,

Appellant.

PER CURIAM — A jury convicted Richard Joyner of robbery in the first degree,

burglary in the first degree, and kidnapping in the first degree, each committed with a

firearm. The court imposed a 510-month sentence that includes three consecutive 120-

month firearm enhancements. 1 Joyner appealed.

Recently, our Supreme Court foreclosed Joyner’s sole argument on appeal when

it declined to overrule State v. Brown, 139 Wn.2d 20, 29, 983 P.2d 608 (1999), which

held that sentencing courts lack discretion to depart from sentencing guidelines with

respect to mandatory enhancements. State v. Kelly, __ Wn. 3d __, 561 P.3d 246, 259

(2024) (declining to overrule Brown, based on a lack of showing that its statutory

interpretation is incorrect and “where the legislature has acquiesced in this court’s

decision, and we respect stare decisis principles”). Joyner’s challenge to the imposition

of mandatory firearm enhancements, contingent on the reversal of Brown, fails.

1 The sentencing enhancements were double the normal length as required by RCW

9.94A.533(4)(d) because of Joyner’s previous conviction that included a deadly weapon enhancement. No. 86063-1-I/2

Joyner has filed a statement of additional grounds for review. He appears to

contend (1) his arrest was unlawful based on “Booking paperwork” that incorrectly

identifies the location and timing of his arrest, (2) the State altered certain photographs

of a co-participant that were admitted into evidence without objection, and (3)

insufficient evidence supports his convictions. As to the first two contentions, Joyner

does not adequately inform us of the nature and occurrence of errors that effect the

validity of his convictions or that would require reversal. RAP 10.10(c). Accordingly,

we will not consider these claims.

Evidence is sufficient to support a guilty verdict if, after viewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find that all of the

elements of the crime charged were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.

Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d 243, 265, 401 P.3d 19 (2017). A defendant challenging

the sufficiency of the evidence admits the truth of the State's evidence, and we draw all

reasonable inferences in favor of the State. Id. at 265-66. We defer to the trier of fact

on issues of conflicting testimony, witness credibility, and the persuasiveness of

evidence. State v. Ague-Masters, 138 Wn. App. 86, 102, 156 P.3d 265 (2007).

Joyner contends the evidence was insufficient because, among other reasons,

the State relied on unspecified hearsay information; the victim was unable to positively

identify him; he is not as tall as the perpetrator described by the victim; he denied

entering the victim’s apartment; there was a second, unrecovered GPS tracker

potentially worn by an unknown individual; and there was a legitimate reason, apart

from guilt, for him to send a text message warning that police had arrived. Joyner’s

claim relies on a selective and subjective interpretation of the evidence. He ignores the

-2- No. 86063-1-I/3

undisputed facts that he knew the other individuals involved and was with them at the

apartment complex where the crimes occurred and at other locations throughout the

night in question, including a location where the victim’s credit card was used. Joyner

does not acknowledge that his DNA was recovered from zip ties used to tie the victim or

that the jury had the opportunity to evaluate video footage recorded during the crimes

and the credibility of his trial testimony. When the evidence is viewed in a light most

favorable to the State, with all reasonable inferences drawn in its favor, sufficient

evidence supports Joyner’s convictions.

Affirmed.

FOR THE COURT:

-3-