State of Washington v. Elijah Collier

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
ELIJAH COLLIER,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 40988-1-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
COONEY , J. — A jury found Elijah Collier guilty of burglary in the first degree
while armed with two firearms. Mr. Collier appeals, arguing the State failed to prove the
essential elements of the crime and the firearm enhancements. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In November 2022, Mr. Collier was hired by James Kirkland, owner of AAA
Allstar Movers & Cleaners (AAA), to complete a job at Robert Goodman’s 1 house.
1 Because Robert Goodman and Ross Goodman share the same last name, we refer
to them by their first names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.
FILED
MARCH 31, 2026
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 40988-1-III
State v. Collier
2
Robert’s son, Ross Goodman, hired AAA to move furniture out of his father’s house so
new carpeting could be installed. AAA tasked Mr. Collier with returning the furniture to
the house after the new carpet had been installed. While onsite, Robert showed Mr.
Collier a few of his cars and other collectable items.
In early December 2022, officers from the Fircrest Police Department were called
to Robert’s home to investigate a reported burglary. Robert’s garage door had been
damaged, and two antique rifles were reportedly missing.2 On December 6, 2022, a Ring
camera recorded an individual prying a garbage door open and then fleeing. Detective
John Roberts compared a photograph of Mr. Collier to the image of the suspect captured
on the Ring camera footage. Detective Roberts found Mr. Collier matched the “height,
build, and general description” of the person in the video recording. Rep. of Proc. (RP)
(July 16, 2024) at 3053.
Mr. Collier was eventually charged with burglary in the first degree and attempted
burglary in the second degree. The State also alleged that Mr. Collier was armed with
two firearms during the commission of the burglary in the first degree. Brandon
Gillespie, Mr. Collier’s friend, was also charged with burglary in the first degree, and the
two cases were joined for trial. In advance of trial, the State reduced Mr. Gillespie’s
2 The record is unclear as to the exact date the rifles were stolen.

No. 40988-1-III
State v. Collier
3
charge to theft in the third degree in exchange for his guilty plea to the charge and his
promise to testify at Mr. Collier’s trial. Mr. Collier’s case proceeded to a jury trial.
At trial, Ross testified that his father’s garage was “broken into” and two of his
father’s rifles, along with other property, were stolen. RP (July 16, 2024) at 3006. After
the burglary, Ross installed a Ring camera that faced the garage. A couple of weeks
later, on December 6, 2022, the Ring camera recorded an individual using “some sort of
crowbar-type device that pried and broke the door open.” RP (July 16, 2024) at 3009-10.
The individual then “got spooked and walked off.” RP (July 16, 2024) at 3010.
Mr. Kirkland testified that Ross hired AAA to move furniture from his father’s
house into pods and then back into the house after new carpeting was installed. Mr.
Kirkland hired his friend, Mr. Collier, to assist in moving Robert’s furniture back into the
house. The State played the Ring recording for Mr. Kirkland during his testimony.
Thereafter, Mr. Kirkland identified the house depicted in the recording as Robert’s and
the individual in the recording as Mr. Collier. Based on previous interactions with Mr.
Collier wearing a full mask during the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Kirkland was able to
recognize him in the video by his “bushy eyebrows.” RP (July 16, 2024) at 3043.
Detective Roberts testified that he interviewed Mr. Collier in December 2022. Mr.
Collier told Detective Roberts that Robert gave Mr. Gillespie two rifles for mechanical
work Mr. Gillespie had completed for Robert. Mr. Gillespie then gave one of the rifles to
Mr. Collier. Detective Roberts testified that Mr. Collier had earlier told him that he had

No. 40988-1-III
State v. Collier
4
purchased the rifle. Detective Roberts also testified that Mr. Collier’s and Mr. Gillespie’s
fingerprints were found on a vehicle in Robert’s garage.
Mr. Gillespie testified that Mr. Collier contacted him in November 2022, and
asked “if [he] wanted to go hit a lick with him.” RP (July 17, 2024) at 4006. Mr.
Gillespie agreed, and the duo traveled to Robert’s house. Mr. Gillespie testified that once
there, Mr. Collier “went and got the door open, and then he came back and grabbed me,
and then we went in.” RP (July 17, 2024) at 4007. Mr. Gillespie admitted they took
tools, and Mr. Collier “grabbed [the rifles]” and rolled “them up in a floor mat that was in
the garage.” RP (July 17, 2024) at 4008. Mr. Collier then drove the pair back to his
house where they divided the stolen property, including the rifles.
Mr. Collier testified that he worked for AAA for approximately four years. He
admitted to completing a job for AAA at Robert’s house and to Robert showing him his
cars. Robert mentioned to Mr. Collier that he wanted to swap the engines of two
vehicles. Knowing that Mr. Gillespie needed work, Mr. Collier put Robert and Mr.
Gillespie in contact with one another. Mr. Collier testified that Mr. Gillespie gave him an
“amazing deal” on a “beautiful engraved rifle” shortly after the two met. RP (July 16,
2024) at 3527. Mr. Collier claimed he was not the individual depicted in the Ring
recording. He testified that it may have been Mr. Gillespie in the recording and that he
had previously told Detective Roberts he thought Mr. Gillespie may have stolen the
rifles.

No. 40988-1-III
State v. Collier
5
The jury ultimately found Mr. Collier guilty of burglary in the first degree and not
guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree. The jury also returned two special
verdicts on the burglary in the first degree charge, finding Mr. Collier was armed with a
“Pump Action Winchester Repeating Arms Model 90-22 Long Rifle” and a “Winchester
Model 94-39 Lever Action Rifle” during the commission of the burglary. Clerk’s Papers
(CP) at 296-97.
Mr. Collier appeals to this court.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Mr. Collier argues the State failed to present evidence sufficient to
prove the elements of burglary in the first degree and the firearm enhancements.
Specifically, Mr. Collier contends that the State failed to present evidence that he entered
or remained unlawfully in the garage and, for purposes of the firearm enhancements, that
he was armed with a deadly weapon while in the garage or immediate flight therefrom.
We disagree.
The sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law this court reviews de novo.
State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897, 903, 365 P.3d 746 (2016). In a sufficiency of the evidence
challenge, “we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine
‘whether . . . any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.’” State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179, 201, 86 P.3d 139 (2004) (quoting State v.
Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992)). “A claim of insufficiency admits

No. 40988-1-III
State v. Collier
6
the truth of the State’s evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from it.”
State v. DeVries, 149 Wn.2d 842, 849, 72 P.3d 748 (2003). We can infer criminal intent
from the defendant’s conduct, and circumstantial evidence and direct evidence carry
equal weight. Varga, 151 Wn.2d at 201. However, “inferences based on circumstantial
evidence must be reasonable and cannot be based on speculation.” State v. Vasquez, 178
Wn.2d 1, 16, 309 P.3d 318 (2013). We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting
testimony, witness credibility, and persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Thomas, 150
Wn.2d 821, 874, 83 P.3d 970 (2004).
Mr. Collier argues the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to support the
burglary in the first degree conviction because the State failed to prove he entered or
remained in Robert’s garage.
To convict Mr. Collier of burglary in the first degree, the State was required to
prove that Mr. Collier (1) “entered or remained unlawfully in a building;” (2) “[t]hat the
entering or remaining was with the intent to commit a crime against a person property
therein;” (3) “[t]hat in so entering or while in the building or immediate flight from the
building [he] was armed with a deadly weapon;” and (4) “[t]hat any of these acts
occurred in the State of Washington.” CP at 314; RCW 9A.52.020.
In reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence
admitted at trial was sufficient to prove the elements of burglary in the first degree. Mr.
Gillespie testified that Mr. Collier contacted him and asked if he “wanted to go hit a lick

No. 40988-1-III
State v. Collier
7
with him.” RP (July 17, 2024) at 4006. Mr. Gillespie described the “lick” as burgling
Robert’s garage. RP (July 17, 2024) at 4006. Mr. Gillespie testified that when they
arrived at Robert’s house, Mr. Collier “went and got the door open, and then he came
back and grabbed me, and then we went in.” RP (July 17, 2024) at 4007. In response to
the State’s question, “What did you guys do after you got into the home?” Mr. Gillespie
clarified, “[W]e only went into the garage, but we basically just, you know, started, you
know, going through stuff and then just grabbing whatever, you know, we wanted or felt
like, you know, we could make money off of.” RP (July 17, 2024) at 4007.
Based on Mr. Gillespie’s testimony, any rational trier of fact could have found
beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Collier entered or remained unlawfully in Robert’s
garage. Thus, sufficient evidence supports Mr. Collier’s conviction for burglary in the
first degree.
Mr. Collier next contends insufficient evidence was presented to prove the firearm
enhancements. Specifically, Mr. Collier argues that no evidence was admitted that he
possessed firearms while entering the garage, remaining in the garage, or in immediate
flight from the garage.
In reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence
admitted at trial was sufficient to prove that Mr. Collier possessed two firearms while in
Robert’s garage and in immediate flight therefrom. Mr. Gillespie testified Mr. Collier
“acquired a couple rifles” from an unlocked safe in Robert’s garage. RP (July 17, 2024)

No. 40988-1-III
State v. Collier
8
at 4008. Mr. Gillespie witnessed Mr. Collier roll the rifles up in a floor mat while in the
garage. The two then departed and later divided the loot, each retaining one rifle.
Based on Mr. Gillespie’s testimony, any rational trier of fact could have found
beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Collier possessed the rifles while in Robert’s garage
or in immediate flight therefrom. Thus, sufficient evidence supports the firearm
enhancements.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
Cooney, J.
WE CONCUR:
Murphy, J.
Hill, J.