State Of Washington, Respondent V. Richard Joyner, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
RICHARD WILLIAM JOYNER,
Appellant.
No. 86063-1-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
P ER CURIAM — A jury convicted Richard Joyner of robbery in the first degree,
burglary in the first degree, and kidnapping in the first degree, each committed with a
firearm. The court imposed a 510-month sentence that includes three consecutive 120-
month firearm enhancements.1 Joyner appealed.
Recently, our Supreme Court foreclosed Joyner’s sole argument on appeal when
it declined to overrule State v. Brown, 139 Wn.2d 20, 29, 983 P.2d 608 (1999), which
held that sentencing courts lack discretion to depart from sentencing guidelines with
respect to mandatory enhancements. 	State v. Kelly, __ Wn. 3d __, 561 P.3d 246, 259
(2024) (declining to overrule Brown, based on a lack of showing that its statutory
interpretation is incorrect and “where the legislature has acquiesced in this court’s
decision, and we respect stare decisis principles”). Joyner’s challenge to the imposition
of mandatory firearm enhancements, contingent on the reversal of Brown, fails.
1 The sentencing enhancements were double the normal length as required by RCW
9.94A.533(4)(d) because of Joyner’s previous conviction that included a deadly weapon enhancement.

No. 86063-1-I/2
-2-
Joyner has filed a statement of additional grounds for review. 	He appears to
contend (1) his arrest was unlawful based on “Booking paperwork” that incorrectly
identifies the location and timing of his arrest, (2) the State altered certain photographs
of 	a 	co-participant 	that 	were 	admitted 	into 	evidence 	without 	objection, 	and 	(3)
insufficient evidence supports his convictions. 	As to the first two contentions, Joyner
does not adequately inform us of the nature and occurrence of errors that effect the
validity of his convictions or that would require reversal. 	RAP 10.10(c). 	Accordingly,
we will not consider these claims.
Evidence is sufficient to support a guilty verdict if, after viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find that all of the
elements of the crime charged were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 	State v.
Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d 243, 265, 401 P.3d 19 (2017). 	A defendant challenging
the sufficiency of the evidence admits the truth of the State's evidence, and we draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the State. Id. at 265-66. 	We defer to the trier of fact
on 	issues 	of 	conflicting 	testimony, 	witness 	credibility, 	and 	the 	persuasiveness 	of
evidence. State v. Ague-Masters, 138 Wn. App. 86, 102, 156 P.3d 265 (2007).
Joyner contends the evidence was insufficient because, among other reasons,
the State relied on unspecified hearsay information; the victim was unable to positively
identify him; he is not as tall as the perpetrator described by the victim; he denied
entering 	the 	victim’s 	apartment; 	there 	was 	a 	second, 	unrecovered 	GPS 	tracker
potentially worn by an unknown individual; and there was a legitimate reason, apart
from guilt, for him to send a text message warning that police had arrived. 	Joyner’s
claim relies on a selective and subjective interpretation of the evidence. 	He ignores the

No. 86063-1-I/3
-3-
undisputed facts that he knew the other individuals involved and was with them at the
apartment complex where the crimes occurred and at other locations throughout the
night in question, including a location where the victim’s credit card was used. 	Joyner
does not acknowledge that his DNA was recovered from zip ties used to tie the victim or
that the jury had the opportunity to evaluate video footage recorded during the crimes
and the credibility of his trial testimony. 	When the evidence is viewed in a light most
favorable to the State, with all reasonable inferences drawn in its favor, sufficient
evidence supports Joyner’s convictions.
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT: