STATE v. BRATLIE, 120 Wn. App. 1012 (2004)

No. 52773-8-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: February 9, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from Superior Court of Thurston County. Docket No. 00-1-01192-3. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 09/27/2002.

Counsel for Appellant(s), Robert A. Bratlie (Appearing Pro Se), #846896 H-6a82, 191 Constantine Way Aberdeen, WA 98520.

Thomas Edward Doyle, Attorney at Law, PO Box 510, Hansville, WA 98340-0510.

Patricia Anne Pethick, Attorney at Law, PO Box 7269, Tacoma, WA 98406-0269.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Steven Curtis Sherman, Thurston County Pros Ofc, 2000 Lakeridge Dr SW, Olympia, WA 98502-6045.

PER CURIAM.

After finding Robert Bratlie guilty of unlawfully manufacturing methamphetamine, a jury found by special verdict that he committed the offense when a person under age 18 was present. Bratlie appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support either verdict. He further contends the special verdict form was defective. We affirm.[1]

DECISION
In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the State.[2] We regard circumstantial and direct evidence as equally reliable[3] and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the State and against the defendant.[4]
Applying those principles here, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, all the elements of the offense and the enhancement set forth in the special verdict form.

To convict Bratlie under the court’s instructions, the jury had to find that in the summer of 2000 he knowingly manufactured, or was an accomplice to the manufacture of, methamphetamine. The State’s evidence demonstrated that on August 22, 2000, a methamphetamine lab was discovered in a garage on the property where Bratlie resided. Testing confirmed the presence of methamphetamine in several containers and in states associated with various stages of the manufacturing process. Bratlie’s fingerprints were on several of the containers.

During the initial police search of the premises, Bratlie arrived in a truck. A box in the truck contained several ingredients and pieces of equipment used in the production of methamphetamine. Bratlie had a key in his pocket that fit a lock police had cut off the garage door. Police also found a baggie of methamphetamine in the couch in Bratlie’s residence. Bratlie admitted that he used methamphetamine.

Taken together and viewed in a light most favorable the State, this circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the elements of manufacturing methamphetamine beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was also sufficient to support the special verdict. The special verdict form required the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Bratlie, as either a principal or an accomplice, manufactured methamphetamine `when a person under the age of eighteen was present in or upon the premises of manufacture.’ The evidence showed that Bratlie’s three-year-old grandson was riding with Bratlie when he arrived during the search. A child’s sippy cup and cereal bowls were found in Bratlie’s residence. Stuffed animals and toys were found on a shelf in one of the bedrooms. There were also some toys on the porch and a small basketball hoop outside. This evidence was sufficient to support the enhancement. Citing State v. Schelin,[5] Bratlie contends that `when the State seeks a sentence enhancement there must be a nexus between the defendant, the crime and the fact triggering the sentence enhancement.’[6] Based on this reading of Schelin, he concludes the special verdict form in this case was defective because it failed to require such a nexus. But Schelin involved a deadly weapon enhancement and a statutory requirement, unique to that setting, that the defendant be `armed’ with the deadly weapon. Division Two of this court recently held that Schelin only applies to firearm enhancements and does not apply to the presence of a minor enhancement for manufacturing methamphetamine.[7] We too perceive no basis, nor does Bratlie provide one, for applying Schelin here.[8]

Bratlie’s pro se statement of additional grounds for review essentially challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and raises no meritorious issues.

Affirmed.

COLEMAN and AGID, JJ., concur.

Page 1013