State Of Washington, Respondent V. Elliott M. Peden, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 53621-8-II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ELLIOTT MONROE PEDEN,
Appellant.
MAXA, J. – A jury convicted Elliott Peden of residential burglary, seven counts of first
degree trafficking in stolen property, and theft of a motor vehicle. Peden challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence of one count (count 7) of trafficking in stolen property, involving a DVD. He also
asserts claims in a statement of additional grounds (SAG). We hold that sufficient evidence
supports his conviction, and we decline to address the SAG claims because they rely on facts
outside the record. Therefore, we affirm Peden’s conviction as charged in count 7.
FACTS
Andrew Baldwin owned a home in Lakewood but only lived there about one month of the
year. On May 15, 2018, several neighbors noticed that Baldwin’s garage door was open and called
the police. An investigation led the police to Peden. The police discovered that Peden had sold
items to multiple pawn shops, and they subsequently recovered many of those items.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
February 9, 2021

No. 536218-II
2
Detective Karen Herritt recovered one of two DVDs that Peden pawned at a used book
store. She then returned the DVD to Baldwin. Baldwin identified the DVD when Herritt gave it
to him. Herritt stated that Baldwin did not have any trouble identifying any of his property.
Baldwin did not specifically testify about the DVD.
The State charged Peden with residential burglary, seven counts of first degree trafficking
in stolen property, and theft of a motor vehicle. A jury found him guilty of all counts. Peden
appeals only his conviction of count 7, first degree trafficking in stolen property involving the
DVD.
ANALYSIS
A. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Peden argues that the State failed to prove first degree trafficking in stolen property as
charged in count 7 because there was insufficient evidence that the DVD at issue was stolen. We
disagree.
The test for determining sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d 243, 265, 401 P.3d 19 (2017).
RCW 9A.82.050 states that a person guilty of first degree trafficking in stolen property if
he or she, among other things, “knowingly traffics in stolen property.” The trial court instructed
the jury that to convict Peden, the State had to prove that he knowingly trafficked in stolen property
and that he knew the property was stolen. Peden points out that he could be found guilty of
trafficking only if the property was in fact stolen.

No. 536218-II
3
Peden argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the trafficking conviction
regarding the DVD because Baldwin never identified the recovered DVD as his. The evidence
regarding the DVD was provided by Herritt. She testified that she showed Baldwin a printout of
items that had been pawned, and he marked the items that were his. The prosecutor then showed
Herritt the printout to refresh her recollection about the DVD. She testified that she returned the
one recovered DVD to Baldwin, who did not have any trouble identifying the DVD.
Although Herritt never specifically testified that she asked Baldwin if the DVD was his,
taken in context a reasonable juror could infer that Baldwin confirmed that the DVD belonged to
him when he identified it. Therefore, a reasonable juror could conclude that the DVD was
Baldwin’s and therefore was stolen.
We hold that the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Peden of first degree
trafficking in stolen property regarding the DVD.
B. SAG CLAIMS
In his SAG, Peden asserts that his defense counsel refused his requests to present witnesses
and to recall State witnesses. He also claims that Baldwin lied about owning some of the property
he took and that some of the property belonged to his girlfriend.
But Peden’s assertions rely entirely on matters outside the record. As a result, we cannot
consider them on direct appeal. State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 569, 192 P.3d 345 (2008)
(citing RAP 10.10(c)). These assertions are more properly raised in a personal restraint petition.
Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d at 569.

No. 536218-II
4
CONCLUSION
We affirm Peden’s conviction of first degree trafficking in stolen property as charged in
count 7.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
MAXA, J.
We concur:
SUTTON, A.C.J.
CRUSER, J.