STATE v. MARKS, 124 Wn. App. 1052 (2004)

No. 54035-1-IThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: December 27, 2004 UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from Superior Court of Snohomish County. Docket No. 04-8-00179-0. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 03/17/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Kenneth L Cowsert.

Counsel for Appellant(s), Eric J. Nielsen, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Mary Kathleen Webber, Snohomish County Prosecutors Office, Msc 504, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett, WA 98201-4061.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Marks appeals from a juvenile conviction for second degree robbery. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he acted as an accomplice. But because there was ample evidence that he acted as a principal, the conviction is affirmed.

FACTS
On November 21, 2003, Robert Hall was spending the evening with his girlfriend, Ingrid Langendorfer. At about 11:30 p.m., they went to the parking lot to take out the garbage. There Hall saw three young men looking in the windows of his car. One of the young men was Langendorfer’s son, Robert. When she called out to him, the three young men approached Hall and Langendorfer.

The three young men were angry. Robert separated from the other two and yelled at his mother. Meanwhile, Marks stood in front of Hall and another young man, Eric Rios, stood behind him. The two of them spoke to each other in Spanish. Hall testified that both of them acted in a threatening manner toward him and that Marks repeatedly told him to shut up when Hall asked what was going on. Marks told Hall that this was the last day he would live. Both Marks and Rios went through his pockets; Rios took his wallet, Marks took his keys.

The young men wanted to go to Scriber Lake Park. Although they had taken Hall’s keys, Ingrid Langendorfer intervened to allow Hall to drive. Hall testified that Marks told him where to drive and to drive at a normal speed limit so as not to attract the attention of the police. Hall was looking for an open business where he could seek help; Marks became `really agitated’ when Hall failed to turn as instructed. Report of Proceedings (RP) (Mar. 17, 2004) at 18. Hall testified that in a panic he skidded into a Safeway parking lot and ran into the store yelling for help. Marks and Rios fled.

At trial, Hall’s account was contradicted in many respects by the Langendorfers. Robert Langendorfer claimed that Marks barely knew Rios and said nothing threatening to Hall. But the trial court set forth in its oral findings detailed credibility determinations, concluding that Hall’s testimony was credible and Robert Langendorfer’s testimony was `ridiculous and not worthy of belief at all.’ Id. at 98. The juvenile court found Marks guilty of robbery in the second degree and imposed a standard range disposition of 80 to 100 weeks of incarceration.

DECISION
Marks argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he acted as an accomplice to robbery insofar as it did not establish that he knew Rios intended to rob Hall. He does not argue that the evidence was insufficient to convict him as a principal.[1] Evidence is sufficient if, after viewing it in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). Credibility determinations are for the trial court. State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 38, 941 P.2d 1102 (1997). In this case, the evidence found to be credible by the juvenile court established that Marks worked with Rios to surround Hall. Marks made threatening comments to Hall. Marks and Rios searched Hall’s pockets together, and Marks removed Hall’s keys without his permission. Although the keys were returned to Hall, this occurred only so Hall could drive the boys where Marks directed him to go. This evidence establishes the elements of robbery in the second degree.[2]

Affirmed.

BAKER, J., COLEMAN, J, GROSSE, J.