State Of Washington, Respondent V. Kamal Abdullahi, Appellant

AH
8:33
IN
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS
FOR
THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF
WASHINGTON,
	)
)
	No.
75871-3-I
Respondent,
	)
)
	DIVISION
ONE
v.
)
KAMAL
ABDULLAHI,
	)
	UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant.
	)
	FILED:
March
5,
2018
SPEARMAN, J.
—
Evidence
is
sufficient
if,
when viewed
in
a
light
most
favorable
to
the State,
it
permits any
rational trier
of
fact
to
find
the elements
of
the
crime beyond a
reasonable
doubt.
Kamal Abdullahi
challenges
his
conviction
for bail
jumping, arguing
that the State
failed
to
produce
sufficient
evidence
as
to
each element
of
the
crime.
But,
viewing
the evidence
in
the
light
most favorable
to
the State, a rational juror could
have found
each element
proved beyond
a
reasonable
doubt. We
affirm.
FACTS
Abdullahi
was charged
with
domestic violence felony violation of
a
no
contact order.
In
May
2015,
prior to trial,
he was granted
work
release.
A
preprinted warning at the bottom of
the order states:
“I
understand that
if
I
violate
conditions of
release,
I
can be arrested and punished for contempt
of court.
If
I
fail to
appear
for court hearings,
I
will
be committing an additional crime of bail

No.
75871-3-1/2
jumping
as
defined
in
RCW 9A.76.170.”
Exhibit (Ex.)
7.
Abdullahi
signed the
order. 
Abdullahi
was
tried
in
January
2016
but
the
jury could not
agree
on
a
verdict.
The court
declared
a mistrial
and
granted
Abdullahi’s motion to
release
him
on
personal recognizance.
The order directs
the
King
County
Jail
“to
release
the defendant
from
jail.” Ex.
16.
The order contains
no
reference
to
future
hearings
or
warning
as
to
failure
to
appear.
In
April
2016,
Abdullahi
appeared
at
a
hearing
on his
motion
to
continue
the
new
trial.
The
court
granted the
motion.
The order
continuing
trial,
which
is
signed
by
Abdullahi,
sets
an omnibus hearing
for
June
10.
Abdullahi
did
not
appear
at the omnibus hearing
on
June
10.
He
was subsequently charged
with
one
count
of bail
jumping.
At
Abdullahi’s
second
trial,
the
jury
acquitted
him of
violating a no-contact
order
but found
him guilty of bail
jumping.
DISCUSSION
Abdullahi
appeals
his conviction, arguing
that the State presented
insufficient
evidence
to
prove
each element
of
bail
jumping.
The
State has the burden
to
prove
each element
of
the crime charged
beyond a
reasonable
doubt.
In
re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 361, 90 S. Ct.
1068, 25
L.
Ed. 2d 368 (1970).
See
also RCW 9A.04.100(1). Evidence
is
sufficient to
support a conviction
if,
viewed
in
the
light
most favorable to
the State, a rational
trier
of fact could have found the essential elements
of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. State
v.
Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992)
2

No.
75871-3-1/3
(citing
State
v.
Green,
94
Wn.2d
216,
220-22, 616 P.2d 628
(1980)).
A
sufficiency
challenge
“admits
the
truth
of
the State’s evidence
and
all
inferences
that reasonably
can
be drawn therefrom.”
Id.
(citing
State
v.
Theroff, 25 Wn. App.
590, 593,
608 P.2d
1254,
affd,
95
Wn.2d
385,
622 P.2d 1240 (1980)).
Under
RCW 9A.76.
170, a
person
is
guilty of bail
jumping when, after being
released
by
court
order
with
a
requirement
to
appear
at
a
subsequent
proceeding, he
knowingly fails to
appear
at the later proceeding.
State
v.
Williams, 162
Wn.2d
177, 184, 170
P.3d
30 (2007)
(citing
State
v.
Pope,
100 Wn.
App. 624, 627, 999 P.2d
51(2000)).
The
State
may prove
that
a
defendant
failed
to
appear
“knowingly”
through
evidence
of
the defendant’s subjective knowledge
or
through circumstantial
evidence
sufficient
for a jury to
conclude that the
defendant
had actual knowledge.
State
v.
Bryant, 89 Wn. App.
857, 870-71, 950
P.2d 1004 (1998).
In
this
case,
Abdullahi
contends the State
failed to
prove that he
was
required
to
appear
at the omnibus hearing and knew of this requirement.
He
relies
on
the January 2016
release
order, which
does
not refer
to
any future
hearings
or include a warning
as
to
failure
to
appear.
The
trial
court admitted the January 2016 order
into
evidence. The court
also admitted the
May
2015 order granting work
release,
which includes the
warning that,
if
Abdullahi failed to
appear
for court hearings, he would be
committing the crime of bail jumping.
In
addition, the court admitted the
April
2016 order setting the omnibus hearing, the June 2016 order for a bench
warrant, and minutes from these hearings.
3

No.
75871-3-1/4
Janet
Llapitan,
the
Judicial
Services Supervisor at the
King
County
Courthouse,
testified
concerning
these
court records.
Liapitan
described the
process
of
recording court
proceedings
and the
information included
in
minute
entries.
She
described
an omnibus hearing and
stated that
all
parties,
including
the defendant, are
required to
appear
at
an omnibus hearing.
Llapitan
stated that
the
court may waive
the defendant’s
presence
at an omnibus hearing and,
if
that
occurs, the
minutes
reflect
that
presence
was
waived.
Llapitan
stated that the
records
in
evidence
in
this
case
do not
show that the
court waived
Abdullahi’s
presence
at any hearing.
The
jury
heard evidence that
a
defendant’s
presence
is
required at
an
omnibus hearing and the
court
did
not waive Abdullahi’s
presence.
The
May
2015 order
included
a
warning
that
failure
to
appear
for
future
hearings
would
constitute the
crime
of bail
jumping.
The
date
of
the omnibus hearing
was
set
in
the
April
2016 order. Abdullahi’s
signature
appears
on
both
of
these
orders.
Viewed
in
the
light
most favorable
to
the State, the evidence
is
sufficient for
a
rational trier of
fact
to find
that the State
proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that
Abdullahi
was required
to
attend the omnibus hearing and knew of
the
requirement.
Affirmed.
WE
	p
t	1	y	4
4