State Of Washington, Respondent V. Marcus Chaney, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
MARCUS DEWON CHANEY,
Appellant.
No. 86919-1-I
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BOWMAN, A.C.J. — In this appeal, Markus Dewon Chaney1 contends that
his conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree infringes his
right to bear arms for self-defense and that his offender score is incorrect. We
affirm Chaney’s conviction but remand to the trial court to correct Chaney’s
offender score in his judgment and sentence.
FACTS
In March 2022, the State charged Chaney with one count of murder in the
second degree (Count 1) and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm in
the first degree (Count 2). Both counts arose from a February 2022 incident in
which Chaney shot another man in downtown Seattle.
1 The court explained during trial that the correct spelling of Chaney’s first name
is “Markus” and used that spelling in its instructions to the jury and jury verdict forms.

No. 86919-1-I/2
2
The trial court bifurcated Count 1 and Count 2 for trial. The State tried
Count 1 to a jury, and Chaney’s theory was self-defense. The jury found Chaney
not guilty of murder in the second degree as charged in Count 1.
The State then tried Count 2 to the bench based on evidence that included
the testimony from the jury trial on Count 1. After trial, the court made the
following findings of fact:
1. On February 27, 2022, the Defendant, Mar[k]us Chaney, was in
possession of a firearm.
2. The Defendant had previously been convicted of a serious
offense as defined by RCW 9.41.010.
3. AFIS[2] [10-]print examiner, Barry Fung, took the Defendant’s
fingerprints on August 10, 2023.
4. Mr. Fung testified on September 5, 2023 that the right index
print from the [10-]print was a match for the Defendant’s right
index print on the Judgment and Sentence on Pierce County
Superior Court case 09-1-02112-2, for Robbery in the First
Degree and Attempted Robbery in the First Degree.
5. The Defendant testified on September 11, 2023. Defendant
admitted to being in possession of a firearm and shooting the
victim . . . .
6. In his statement to police on March 22, 2022, the defendant
acknowledged that he was a “felon” and inferred that he knew
he was prohibited from possessing a firearm based on that
conviction.
The court concluded that the State proved the elements of unlawful possession
of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt and found Chaney guilty of Count 2.
The court sentenced Chaney to 116 months of confinement. Consistent
with the parties’ agreed resolution of this cause and two other cause numbers,
the court ordered that the sentence run concurrently with Chaney’s sentences on
2 Automated fingerprint identification system.

No. 86919-1-I/3
3
the two other causes. On Chaney’s judgment and sentence, the trial court
indicated that his offender score was 30.
Chaney appeals.
ANALYSIS
Chaney contends that his conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm in
the first degree infringes his right to bear arms for self-defense and that his
offender score is incorrect. We address each argument in turn.
1. Conviction
Chaney asserts that both the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution and article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution protect his
right to bear arms in self-defense. He contends that because a jury accepted his
self-defense theory on Count 1, his conviction on Count 2 can stand only if the
trial court found that he possessed a firearm “outside of” the episode of self-
defense. And Chaney argues that because the trial court found that Chaney
possessed a firearm only on February 27, 2022 without further “specifying the
timing” of his possession of the firearm on that date, the court’s findings are
insufficient to support his conviction. We need not reach his constitutional
argument because, even assuming his Second Amendment analysis has merit,
sufficient evidence supports his conviction.
Chaney relies on State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102, 330 P.3d 182 (2004),
for the proposition that in considering a sufficiency challenge after a bench trial,
“this Court must utilize the trial court’s findings of fact as the basis for review, not

No. 86919-1-I/4
4
the entirety of the evidence presented at trial.”3 But as Chaney acknowledges in
his reply brief, our Supreme Court recently abrogated Homan in State v. Roberts,
___ Wn.3d ___, 572 P.3d 1191 (2025), which the court decided after Chaney
filed his opening brief. In Roberts, the court explained that Homan “misspoke”
when reciting the standard for a sufficiency challenge following a bench trial.
Roberts, 572 P.3d at 1199. The correct test is—and always has been—
“whether, after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,
any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at
1195.
Here, there is evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find that
Chaney possessed a firearm outside the time that he used it in self-defense.
Indeed, Chaney himself testified that he possessed the firearm before the self-
defense episode. So, assuming without deciding that both the federal and state
constitutions protect his right to bear arms in self-defense to the extent that
Chaney claims they do, Chaney fails to show that his conviction is
unconstitutional.
2. Offender Score
Chaney next asserts his judgment and sentence incorrectly states that his
offender score is 30 instead of 20. Chaney argues that remand is required to
correct this error and he does not seek resentencing. The State concedes that
Chaney’s offender score was actually 20 and does not object to “remand for the
3 Emphasis added.

No. 86919-1-I/5
5
limited purpose of a ministerial correction of his judgment and sentence.” We
accept the State’s concession.
We affirm Chaney’s conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm in the
first degree and remand to the trial court solely to correct Chaney’s offender
score in his judgment and sentence.
WE CONCUR: