Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
June 17, 2025
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 58646-1-II
Respondent,
v.
RONALD KEITH MIDDLEBROOKS, JR., UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
LEE, P.J. — Ronald K. Middlebrooks, Jr. appeals his judgment and sentence, arguing the
trial court erred by (1) joining separate offenses for a single trial, (2) allowing a law enforcement
officer to identify Middlebrooks in surveillance camera footage, and (3) finding sufficient evidence
to support the firearm sentencing enhancements on two assault charges. We affirm.
FACTS
A. MAY 3 INCIDENT
1. Robbery and Car Theft
In the early morning hours of May 3, 2022, Marc Stilwell and his girlfriend, Barbara
Benigno,1 visited a bank to withdraw cash. Stilwell drove himself and Benigno to the bank in his
cream-colored Chrysler 300.
1 Benigno passed away before trial and was not available to testify. No. 58646-1-II
After parking, the couple walked up to the ATM (automatic teller machine) and withdrew
$600 in cash. The couple then noticed a white SUV pull into the parking lot. Two men approached
the couple and blocked them from leaving the ATM area. One of the men was carrying “a big
black gun.” 2 Verbatim Rep. of Proc. (VRP) (July 10, 2023) at 232. That man pointed the gun at
the couple, told them to stop, and said that he wanted their money. The armed man ejected one of
the bullets out of the gun to show the couple that the gun “was loaded and ready to shoot.” 2 VRP
(July 10, 2023) at 232. The armed man then took the Chrysler 300 keys from Stilwell, while his
accomplice took the cash from Benigno. The armed man drove off in the Chrysler 300.
After the men drove away, Benigno called 911. The responding officer collected an
unfired, .40 caliber ammunition cartridge from the scene. The responding officer also reported the
Chrysler 300 as stolen to alert other law enforcement personnel.
The incident was captured on video by the bank’s surveillance cameras. The video was
admitted into evidence and published to the jury.
2. Gas Station Sighting
Around 2:03 AM on May 3, after the robbery occurred, Detective Tobin Volkman noticed
a Chrysler 300 while on patrol. Detective Volkman observed the vehicle pull into a gas station.
Because Detective Volkman had already been alerted to look out for the vehicle, he requested back
up. When Detective Volkman and other officers approached the vehicle, it was unoccupied.
After securing the vehicle, Detective Volkman reviewed surveillance footage of the inside
and outside of the gas station store. Both videos were admitted into evidence and published to the
jury.
2 No. 58646-1-II
Surveillance footage from outside the store showed a Chrysler 300 entering the gas station
lot and parking in front of the store around 2:02 AM. Around 2:04:30, a man and woman walked
away from the car, they paused in front of the store, and the man entered while the woman walked
towards the gas pumps. Surveillance footage from outside the store also showed Detective
Volkman’s police cruiser enter the gas station lot, the woman outside noticing Detective
Volkman’s arrival, and the woman going into the store.
Around the same time, surveillance footage from inside the store showed the man entering
the store between 2:04 and 2:05 AM. The video captured the man’s face and clothing clearly, and
the man’s clothing appears to be the same as the armed man’s clothing on the bank surveillance
footage. Compare Ex. 11, at 4:35-5:06 with Ex. 9, Camera 3, at 11:27.03-12:06.45. The inside
surveillance footage then showed the woman entering the store and walking towards where the
man had been. The woman and man then exited the store. After leaving the store, the outside
surveillance footage captured the man getting into a white SUV and leaving the gas station while
the police inspected the Chrysler 300.
B. MAY 5 INCIDENT
Two days after the robbery, Officer Nile Teclemariam was on patrol when he noticed a
vehicle without a license plate; however, the vehicle fled before Officer Teclemariam could
investigate. Because Officer Teclemariam had seen the vehicle exit a nearby hotel’s parking lot,
he went to the hotel to view its surveillance footage.
The hotel surveillance footage depicted a man and a woman exiting an unlicensed Prius.
The man and the woman entered room 214. Officer Teclemariam asked another officer to run the
Prius’ vehicle identification number and learned that the Prius had been reported stolen. Officer
3 No. 58646-1-II
Teclemariam then spoke with the hotel manager, who asked Officer Teclemariam to trespass the
guests in room 214.
As Officer Teclemariam and Officer Stephen Moffitt approached room 214, the man
Officer Teclemariam had seen exit the Prius earlier exited room 214. Officer Teclemariam
recognized the man as Middlebrooks and called out his name, telling him to stop. When
Middlebrooks continued walking away, Officer Teclemariam grabbed Middlebrooks’ shoulder,
pinned him against the door, and told him he was under arrest.
At that point, Middlebrooks hit Officer Teclemariam in the face and then on the cheek. In
response, Officer Moffitt took Middlebrooks to the ground. Middlebrooks grabbed Officer
Teclemariam and dragged him to the ground as well. Officer Moffitt then attempted to use a pain
compliance technique on Middlebrooks, but Middlebrooks bit Officer Moffitt’s hand.
A third officer—Officer Kaybree Eames—noticed the altercation and went to help. When
Officer Eames arrived, she attempted to control Middlebrooks’ legs. Middlebrooks continued
resisting, so Officer Teclemariam told Officer Eames to tase Middlebrooks. Officer Eames
grabbed Officer Teclemariam’s taser and used it once on Middlebrooks. The taser caused
Middlebrooks to stop resisting, and he was taken into custody. The altercation between the officers
and Middlebrooks was captured on video, which was later admitted into evidence and published
to the jury.
After handcuffing Middlebrooks, Officer Teclemariam noticed a bag under Middlebrooks’
feet. When Officer Teclemariam picked up the bag, he felt the shape of a firearm inside it. Officer
Teclemariam opened the bag and found a Glock 22 inside.
4 No. 58646-1-II
C. PRETRIAL
For the May 3 incident, the State charged Middlebrooks with one count of first degree
robbery, one count of theft of a motor vehicle, and one count of third degree theft. For the May 5
incident, the State charged Middlebrooks under a separate cause number with one count of first
degree unlawful possession of a firearm, two counts of third degree assault, and one count of
resisting arrest.2
1. Motion to Join the May 3 and May 5 Offenses
Prior to trial, the State moved to join the May 3 and May 5 offenses and to amend the
information to add firearm sentencing enhancements to the two assault charges and to add one
count of first degree robbery, also with a firearm sentencing enhancement. Middlebrooks objected.
Middlebrooks argued that joinder was inappropriate because trying the May 3 and May 5
charges together would prejudice him. Specifically, Middlebrooks asserted that allowing the jury
to hear evidence from the May 5 officers and to see video of the May 5 assaults would prejudice
Middlebrooks in defending against the May 3 charges, where his defense—no way to identify him
as the robber—was much stronger.
The trial court granted the State’s motion and joined the May 3 and May 5 offenses. The
trial court also entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court’s findings
and conclusions relevant here include:
2 The original information for the May 5 offenses is not in the record on appeal.
5 No. 58646-1-II
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ....
2. Based on the representations by the State of the alleged facts, the alleged robbery by use of a firearm on 05/02/22[3] and the subsequent arrest involving an alleged assault of the police officers on 05/03/22[4] are based on the same conduct or series of acts constituting one single scheme or plan, when the officers found a firearm in the defendant’s possession, are connected as a series of acts involving the same firearm.
....
6. The Court finds that the State’s evidence on the offenses are similar involving evidence of possession of the firearm. The State represents that the offenses are provable through video and other identifying evidence of the defendant and the firearm allegedly used. 7. The Court finds that the defenses on each count, although somewhat dissimilar, do not contradict one another or prejudice the presentation of the defendant’s ability to present his current stated defenses to all of the listed charges. 8. The Court finds that there is a presumption that jurors will follow the jury instructions concerning their requirement to consider each count separately. Although there may be instances where jurors do not adhere to this instruction, there is no evidence or indication given the nature of the charges that they would be unable to follow their instructions in this case. 9. Evidence of the gun allegedly found on the defendant on 05/03/22[5], would likely be relevant and admissible evidence during the state’s attempt to prove the earlier robbery on 05/02/22.[6] 10. The State represents that within the presentation of their case they will present evidence that the firearm matches the caliber of the ejected cartridge left at the scene of the robbery, the appearance of the Glock 22 matches the description provided by the witness, and the State will present evidence of toolmark identification connecting the ejected cartridge to the firearm.
3 Bank surveillance footage establishes that the robbery occurred on May 3, and both Middlebrooks and the State allege the robbery occurred on May 3 on appeal. Presumably the trial court made a clerical error. 4 Presumably, the trial court meant the assault on May 5, 2022. 5 Presumably, the trial court meant the gun found on May 5, 2022. 6 Presumably, the trial court meant May 3, 2022.
6 No. 58646-1-II
11. Evidence of the assault against the law enforcement officers is not found to be overly prejudicial to the defendant and the alleged unlawful possession of a firearm charge would be admissible and probative evidence to be presented during the states [sic] attempt to prove the alleged robbery on 5/02/22.[7]
Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 26-27.
Pursuant to the trial court’s joinder order, the State filed an amended information joining
the May 3 and May 5 offenses. For the May 3 incident, the State charged Middlebrooks with two
counts of first degree robbery and one count of theft of a motor vehicle. For the May 5 incident,
the State charged Middlebrooks with one count of first degree unlawful possession of a firearm,
two counts of third degree assault, and one count of resisting arrest. The two first degree robbery
counts and the two third degree assault counts were charged with a firearm sentencing
enhancement.
2. Identification Testimony
Also prior to trial, the State moved to allow Officer Teclemariam to identify Middlebrooks
as the person depicted in the gas station surveillance footage. Middlebrooks objected.
At the hearing on the State’s motion, Officer Teclemariam testified that he had previously
contacted Middlebrooks in September 2020, at which time Middlebrooks had a firearm. Officer
Teclemariam also recounted his altercation with Middlebrooks on May 5. The trial court granted
the State’s motion, explaining it would allow Officer Teclemariam to identify Middlebrooks as the
man in the gas station surveillance footage “based on his contact with the defendant on [May] 5th.”
3 VRP (July 11, 2023) at 486.
7 Presumably, the trial court meant May 3, 2022.
7 No. 58646-1-II
D. TRIAL
At trial, the State’s witnesses testified regarding the May 3 and May 5 incidents as set out
above. Additional testimony relevant to this appeal is included below.
1. Witness Testimony
Stilwell testified that he “didn’t get a good look at [the men’s] faces” because the men wore
face coverings and it was dark. 2 VRP (July 10, 2023) at 231. Stilwell was only able to testify
that the armed man was Black. Furthermore, Stilwell was unable to identify Middlebrooks as
either of the men who robbed him and Benigno.
Officer Teclemariam also gave identification testimony. Officer Teclemariam identified
Middlebrooks in court as the person he arrested on May 5. Officer Teclemariam then stated that
prior to testifying, he reviewed the gas station surveillance footage from May 3. The man in the
gas station surveillance footage was the same person Officer Teclemariam arrested on May 5—
Middlebrooks.
2. Fingerprint Evidence
Sheena Meara, a forensic technician with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department, testified
that she compared two latent prints lifted from the Chrysler 300 with a known set of Middlebrooks’
fingerprints. By manually comparing the latent prints to a known set of prints, Meara was able to
match two of the prints lifted from the Chrysler 300 to Middlebrooks. Meara also testified that in
her opinion, the prints could not have belonged to anyone but Middlebrooks.
Danielle McCready, another forensic technician, testified that she reviewed Meara’s work
and concurred with Meara’s results. Jordyn Casteel, a forensic investigator, also testified that she
reviewed Meara’s work and concurred with Meara’s results.
8 No. 58646-1-II
3. Firearm Evidence
Theunis Brits, a forensic scientist with the Washington State Patrol Crime lab, testified
regarding the unfired cartridge recovered from the May 3 crime scene and the firearm recovered
from the May 5 crime scene. Brits testified that the firearm he received was capable of holding 16
rounds: 15 in the magazine and one in the chamber. Brits explained that if Middlebrooks ejected
an unfired cartridge from the firearm on May 3, the firearm would have 14 bullets in the magazine
and one bullet in the chamber for a total of 15 bullets in the firearm. Officer Teclemariam testified
that the firearm he recovered on May 5 was loaded with 15 bullets.
Brits also conducted a tool-mark identification analysis on the cartridge ejected on May 3
and the firearm recovered on May 5. Brits compared the unfired cartridge recovered from the May
3 robbery to two live rounds that he cycled through the firearm recovered from Middlebrooks on
May 5. Brits concluded that “[b]ased on the quantity and quality of unique markings that I saw on
the evidence piece, the unfired cartridge, it is my opinion that that unfired cartridge was cycled
through the Glock 22” recovered on May 5. 4 VRP (July 12, 2023) at 600. Brits acknowledged
that this was a subjective conclusion.
The jury found Middlebrooks guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Middlebrooks
to a total of 300 months confinement.
Middlebrooks appeals.
9 No. 58646-1-II
ANALYSIS
A. JOINDER
Middlebrooks argues that the trial court erred by joining the May 3 and May 5 offenses for
trial. Even assuming without deciding that the trial court erred by joining Middlebrooks’ offenses
for trial, any error was harmless.
1. Legal Principles
“‘Joinder’ refers to bringing multiple criminal charges against one person as separate
counts in a single charging document” and is governed by CrR 4.3(a). State v. Bluford, 188 Wn.2d
298, 305-06, 393 P.3d 1219 (2017). Under CrR 4.3(a):
Two or more offenses may be joined in one charging document, with each offense stated in a separate count, when the offenses, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both: (1) Are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan; or (2) Are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.
Trial courts have “‘considerable discretion’” when it comes to joinder. Bluford, 188 Wn.2d at 310
(quoting State v. Thompson, 88 Wn.2d 518, 525, 564 P.2d 315 (1977), overruled on other grounds
by State v. Thornton, 119 Wn.2d 578, 580, 583, 835 P.2d 216 (1992)). We review “a trial court’s
decision on a pretrial motion for joinder . . . for abuse of discretion.”8 Id. at 305.
8 Middlebrooks argues that “[w]hether separate offenses satisfy [CrR 4.3’s] textual requirements presents a legal question this Court reviews de novo.” Br. of Appellant at 19 (citing State v. Martinez, 2 Wn.3d 675, 541 P.3d 970 (2024)). In Martinez, our Supreme Court recognized “some confusion over the proper standard of review” for joinder decisions. 2 Wn.3d at 681 n.3. While the court stated that “[b]ecause joinder must first be allowable under CrR 4.3, part of a reviewing court’s analysis is interpreting court rules, which is a legal question and subject to de novo review,” it was merely restating the well-establish rule that we review legal questions de novo, such as when the parties argue over the meaning of the words in CrR 4.3, as opposed to arguing over whether
10 No. 58646-1-II
A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision “is manifestly unreasonable or based
on untenable grounds or reasons.” State v. Sanjurjo-Bloom, 16 Wn. App. 2d 120, 125, 479 P.3d
1195 (2021). Because “a judge cannot abuse [their] discretion based on facts that do not yet exist,”
this court considers “only the facts known to the trial judge at the time [it rules on a pretrial joinder
motion], rather than the events that develop later at trial.” Bluford, 188 Wn.2d at 310; accord State
v. Martinez, 2 Wn.3d 675, 682, 541 P.3d 970 (2024).
“If joinder was not proper but offenses were consolidated in one trial, the convictions must
be reversed unless the error is harmless.” State v. Bryant, 89 Wn. App. 857, 864, 950 P.2d 1004
(1998), review denied, 137 Wn.2d 1017 (1999); see also State v. Watkins, 53 Wn. App. 264, 273,
766 P.2d 484 (1989) (“Consistent with [the harmless error] rule, we conclude that misapplication
of ER 404(b) in severance cases does not compel a new trial where, within reasonable probabilities,
the error is harmless.”).
2. Any Error Was Harmless
Below, the trial court ordered that Middlebrooks’ offense be joined together pursuant to
CrR 4.3(a)(2):
Based on the representations by the State of the alleged facts, the alleged robbery by use of a firearm on 05/02/22[9] and the subsequent arrest involving an alleged assault of the police officers on 05/03/22[10] are based on the same conduct or series of acts constituting one single scheme or plan, when the officers found a firearm in
the facts of a specific case satisfy the rule’s textual requirements. Id. Moreover, the Martinez court reaffirmed that “the standard of review of trial court motions granting or denying joinder motions is abuse of discretion.” Id. 9 Presumably, the trial court meant May 3, 2022. 10 Presumably, the trial court meant May 5, 2022.
11 No. 58646-1-II
the defendant’s possession, are connected as a series of acts involving the same firearm.
CP at 26. We need not address the merits of the trial court’s ruling because even assuming without
deciding that Middlebrooks’ offenses were joined in error, any error was harmless.
a. May 3 offenses
Here, any error was harmless because even if Middlebrooks had faced separate trials for
his May 3 and May 5 offenses, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have convicted
Middlebrooks of two counts of first degree robbery and one count of theft of a motor vehicle.
“A person commits robbery when [they] unlawfully take[] personal property from the
person of another or in [their] presence against [their] will by the use or threatened use of
immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or [their] property or the person or
property of anyone.” RCW 9A.56.190. First degree robbery occurs where, “[i]n the commission
of a robbery or of immediately flight therefrom,” the defendant “[i]s armed with a deadly weapon”
or “[d]isplays what appears to be a firearm or other deadly weapon.” RCW 9A.56.200(1)(a)(i)-
(ii).
“A person is guilty of theft of a motor vehicle if he or she commits theft of a motor vehicle.”
RCW 9A.56.065(1). “Theft” means “[t]o wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the
property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such
property or services.” RCW 9A.56.020(1)(a).
Ample evidence shows that Middlebrooks robbed Stilwell and Benigno and stole Stilwell’s
vehicle on May 3. For example, bank surveillance footage captured the robbery on video. After
pointing the gun at Stilwell and Benigno, the man and his accomplice took $600 from the couple
12 No. 58646-1-II
and their vehicle before fleeing the scene. The jury could have compared both Middlebrooks’ in
court appearance and the bank surveillance footage to surveillance footage from the gas station
following the robbery to conclude that Middlebrooks was the person in the bank and gas station
surveillance footages. Also, Middlebrooks’ fingerprints were found on the Chrysler 300.
Furthermore, Stilwell testified that one of the men who robbed him was carrying “a big
black gun” and that the same man pointed the gun at Stilwell and Benigno before ejecting one of
the bullets to show the couple that the gun was loaded and ready to shoot. 2 VRP (July 10, 2023)
at 232. The State would likely have introduced the gun recovered from Middlebrooks on May 5
to further prove his identity as the robber on May 3. And tool-mark identification analysis showed
that the unfired cartridge used to threaten Stilwell and Benigno at the bank matched the unique
markings of bullets fired with the gun recovered from Middlebrooks on May 5.
Thus, in light of the evidence, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have
convicted Middlebrooks of two counts of first degree robbery and one count of theft of a motor
vehicle even if the May 3 and May 5 incidences were tried in separate trials.
b. May 5 Offenses
Similarly, any error was harmless with regard to the May 5 offenses because there is a
reasonable probability that the jury would have convicted Middlebrooks of one count of first
degree unlawful possession of a firearm, two counts of third degree assault, and one count of
resisting arrest.
A person commits unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree “if the person owns,
accesses, has in the person’s custody, control, or possession, or receives any firearm after having
13 No. 58646-1-II
previously been convicted . . . in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense.” RCW
9.41.040(1)(a).
A person commits third degree assault if, “[w]ith intent to prevent or resist the execution
of any lawful process or mandate of any court officer or the lawful apprehension or detention of
himself, herself, or another person, assaults another.” RCW 9A.36.031(1)(a).
“A person is guilty of resisting arrest if he or she intentionally prevents or attempts to
prevent a peace officer from lawfully arresting him or her.” RCW 9A.76.040(1).
Here, the three officers involved in Middlebrooks’ arrest provided ample evidence that
Middlebrooks assaulted two officers and resisted arrest on May 5. Officer Teclemariam testified
that when he attempted to arrest Middlebrooks on May 5, Middlebrooks hit him in the face and on
the cheek. Officer Moffitt testified that after he and Officer Teclemariam took Middlebrooks to
the ground, Middlebrooks bit Officer Moffitt’s hand. Officer Eames witnessed much of the
altercation and testified that Officers Teclemariam and Moffitt were trying to control
Middlebrooks’ hands and that Middlebrooks was actively resisting their attempts to control him.
In fact, Officer Eames testified that it was not until she used a taser on Middlebrooks that he
stopped resisting.
There was also ample evidence to show that Middlebrooks was in possession of a firearm
on May 5. Officer Teclemariam testified that after handcuffing Middlebrooks, he noticed a bag
near Middlebrooks’ feet. When Officer Teclemariam picked the bag up, he felt the shape of a
firearm inside it. Officer Teclemariam opened the bag and found a Glock 22 inside.
14 No. 58646-1-II
Thus, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have convicted Middlebrooks of
one count of first degree unlawful possession of a firearm, two counts of third degree assault, and
one count of resisting arrest even if the May 3 and May 5 incidences were tried in separate trials.
Because there is a reasonable probability that a jury would have convicted Middlebrooks
as charged, even if he faced the May 3 and May 5 charges in separate trials, any error in joining
the offenses was harmless.
B. IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY
Middlebrooks argues that the “trial court improperly allowed Officer Teclemariam to
identify Mr. Middlebrooks as the individual in the gas station surveillance footage.” Br. of
Appellant at 38. Middlebrooks argues that the trial court’s error was not harmless because without
Officer Teclemariam’s testimony, there was insufficient evidence identifying Middlebrooks as the
person in the May 3 bank footage. Even assuming without deciding that the trial court improperly
allowed the officer to provide identification testimony, any error was harmless.
Nonconstitutional errors are harmless if, absent the error, there is a reasonable probability
that the outcome of the trial would not have been materially affected. See Sanjurjo-Bloom, 16 Wn.
App. 2d at 127-29 (applying nonconstitutional harmless error standard where trial court erred by
allowing lay witness to identify defendant in surveillance footage). Here, any error was harmless
because even without Officer Teclemariam’s testimony, there was ample evidence tying
Middlebrooks to the May 3 robbery.
Even without Officer Teclemariam’s identification testimony, the jury would still have
been able to compare the man in the gas station surveillance video to Middlebrooks’ in court
appearance. The jury also would have been able to compare the man in the bank surveillance
15 No. 58646-1-II
video to the man in the gas station surveillance video. Furthermore, the stolen vehicle that was
recovered from the gas station on May 3 had two fingerprints lifted from its exterior that matched
Middlebrooks’ prints. And an expert testified that based on his forensic analysis of the firearm
recovered from Middlebrooks on May 5, he concluded that the bullet found at the scene of the
May 3 robbery had been cycled through the firearm recovered from Middlebrooks on May 5.
Thus, the evidence in the record shows a reasonable probability that the outcome of the
trial would not have been materially affected by the trial court’s error in allowing Officer
Teclemariam’s identification testimony. Therefore, even if the trial court erred by allowing the
identification testimony, any error was harmless.
C. FIREARM SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS
Middlebrooks argues that there was insufficient evidence “to support [the] firearm
enhancements on Mr. Middlebrooks’ two assault convictions” because the “mere presence of a
weapon at a crime scene is insufficient to establish the” requisite nexus between crime and weapon.
Br. of Appellant at 44. We disagree.
Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW, (SRA), the trial court
must increase the sentence for certain felony crimes “if the offender . . . was armed with a firearm.”
RCW 9.94A.533(3). To support a firearm sentencing enhancement, the State must prove that the
defendant “‘is within proximity of an easily and readily available deadly weapon for offensive or
defensive purposes and [that] a nexus is established between the defendant, the weapon, and the
crime.’” State v. Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1, 17, 391 P.3d 409 (2017) (alteration in original)
16 No. 58646-1-II
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. O’Neal, 159 Wn.2d 500, 503-04, 150 P.3d
1121 (2007)).
A sufficient nexus exists “when the defendant and the weapon are ‘in close proximity’ at
the relevant time” and where “‘the facts and circumstances support an inference of a connection
between the weapon, the crime, and the defendant.’” Id. (first quoting State v. Gurske, 155 Wn.2d
134, 141-42, 118 P.3d 333 (2005), then State v. Easterlin, 159 Wn.2d 203, 210, 149 P.3d 366
(2006)). If the defendant did not use the weapon “in the commission of the crime, it must be there
to be used.” Gurske, 155 Wn.2d at 138. Thus, the State must demonstrate the defendant’s “intent
or willingness” to use the weapon in the commission of the charged crimes. State v. Brown, 162
Wn.2d 422, 434, 173 P.3d 245 (2007).
2. Sufficient Evidence Supports the Firearm Enhancements
Middlebrooks concedes that he possessed the weapon on May 5. Thus, the only issues on
appeal are whether the State offered sufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the weapon
and Middlebrooks’ assault charges and whether there was sufficient evidence to show that the
weapon was readily available.
The admitted video of the May 5 assaults is not particularly helpful, as it is a cellphone
video recording of another video playing on a computer monitor, making it difficult to make out
what, if anything, Middlebrooks is doing after officers take him to the ground. However, three of
the officers involved in the May 5 altercation provided testimony sufficient to establish
Middlebrooks’ intent to use the firearm in the commission of his assaults.
Officer Moffitt testified that after he took Middlebrooks to the ground, he saw
Middlebrooks reaching for his waistband area, and that that caused him concern because in his
17 No. 58646-1-II
training and experience, “suspects commonly carry firearms . . . in their waistband.” 3 VRP (July
11, 2023) at 464-65. Officer Moffitt also testified that Middlebrooks continued to reach for his
waistband and that it took all of Officer Moffitt’s strength to hold Middlebrooks’ left arm back.
Officer Teclemariam testified that Middlebrooks kept reaching for his waist even after the
officers took him to the ground and flipped him onto his stomach. Officer Teclemariam also
testified that after they handcuffed Middlebrooks, he picked up a bag under Middlebrooks’ feet
and in the bag was a loaded firearm that could be fired by “just pull[ing] the trigger.” 3 VRP (July
11, 2023) at 531. Officer Teclemariam testified that all Middlebrooks would have had to do to
fire the weapon was “unzip the bag and then just grab the gun.” 3 VRP (July 11, 2023) at 531.
Officer Eames testified that when she observed Middlebrooks fighting with Officers
Moffitt and Teclemariam, they had Middlebrooks on his stomach and were trying to control his
arms, which were tucked under his body.
The testimony of Officers Moffitt, Teclemariam, and Eames demonstrates Middlebrooks’
intent or willingness to use the firearm during his assault of the officers and that a firearm was
readily available to him. Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d at 17. And the evidence is sufficient to
demonstrate a nexus between the firearm and crimes charged. Brown, 162 Wn.2d at 434. Thus,
there was sufficient evidence to support the firearm sentencing enhancements on the assault
charges.
CONCLUSION
Any error in joining the charges and in allowing identification testimony was harmless.
Also, sufficient evidence supports the firearm sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, we affirm.
18 No. 58646-1-II
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.
Lee, P.J. We concur:
Glasgow, J.
Price, J.