FILED
MAR 05, 2013
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 30233-4-III
)
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
RICHARD SOLIZ, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
BROWN, J. - Richard Soliz appeals his Yakima County second degree
manslaughter conviction. He contends insufficient evidence supports his conviction
because the State failed to disprove his self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
Based on the range of substantial disputed evidence, we disagree. Pro se, Mr. Soliz
contends insufficient deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing was accomplished and asserts
prosecutorial misconduct, but he fails to sufficiently elaborate for our review.
Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
In February 2010, Mr. Soliz and his friend, Oscar Flores Jr., went to a Yakima bar.
Mr. Lemus-Vargas sat at the bar stool next to Mr. Soliz. Mr. Lemus-Vargas asked Mr.
No. 30233-4-111
State v. Soliz
Soliz to "watch his back" because he was going to talk to several men that were sitting at
a nearby table. Report of Proceedings (RP) (Aug. 23, 2011) at 554-55. Mr. Soliz agreed,
but nothing happened and the men continued drinking together. When the bar closed,
Mr. Lemus-Vargas offered to drive Mr. Soliz and Mr. Flores home because Mr. Soliz did
not feel able to drive due to intoxication.
Mr. Flores got into the backseat of Mr. Lemus-Vargas' car and Mr. Soliz got in the
front passenger seat. Mr. Soliz noticed his interior door handle was not working. As
they drove, Mr. Soliz asked Mr. Lemus-Vargas what he was talking about to the people at
the bar. Mr. Lemus-Vargas became very upset, raised his voice, and told Mr. Soliz it was
none of his concern. Mr. Soliz claims Mr. Lemus-Vargas refused to let him out of the
car. When Mr. Lemus-Vargas stopped the car at a stop sign Mr. Flores got out of the
back seat. Mr. Flores later reported he wanted to get out of the car because he had
violated his probation conditions by being intoxicated and feared the police might stop
the vehicle; he did not remember hearing an argument between the men in front.
According to Mr. Soliz, as he tried to get out of the driver's door, Mr. Lemus-
Vargas hit and stabbed him and he somehow must have managed to get the knife away
from Mr. Lemus-Vargas and stabbed him in self-defense. Mr. Lemus-Vargas was
discovered by passers-by ana he was transported to the hospital, where he later died. The
coroner's report indicated that Mr. Lemus-Vargas had a blood alcohol level of .28 and
there was evidence of cocaine and metabolized cocaine and alcohol in his system. Mr.
2
No.30233-4-III
State v. Soliz
Lemus-Vargas had cuts on his ankle, lip, wrist and hairline, caused by a four inch knife.
He also sustained a two-inch deep stab wound into the back of his shoulder, and four stab
wounds on the right side of his back. A knife was never located. Mr. Soliz left a blood
trail to Mr. Flores' house where police found him. Police found bloody items belonging
to Mr. Soliz hidden under a van. The State theorized that because DNA tests did not
show any blood from Mr. Soliz in the car but considerable blood from Mr. Lemus-Vargas
was found there, Mr. Soliz self-inflicted his wounds after the stabbing in order to claim
self-defense.
The State charged Mr. Soliz with second degree murder. Mr. Soliz claimed self-
defense.
At trial, Mr. Soliz testified he believed Mr. Lemus-Vargas was going to kill him.
Mr. Soliz suffered bruises on the back of his head and shoulders, a cut to his leg, an
abdominal stab wound, and bruises to his face and left hand. The tendons in both hands
were severed and were characterized by the forensic pathologist as "defensive wounds."
RP (Aug. 25,2011) at 760. Mr. Soliz had no immediate or later recollection of getting
the knife away from Mr. Lemus-Vargas or of harming him.
Dr. Mark McClung, a psychiatrist, testified that he interviewed Mr. Soliz,
reviewed discovery, conducted tests, and obtained background information from family
members about Mr. Soliz. It was his opinion that Mr. Soliz perceived the attack by Mr.
3
No.30233-4-III
State v. Soliz
Lemus-Vargas as life-threatening, and as a result suffered from acute stress disorder at
the time and later, post-traumatic stress disorder.
A forensic examination of Mr. Lemus-Vargas' car revealed blood staining in and
around the driver's seat, as well as between the seat and door. Blood was found on the
steering wheel, as well as on the console. In contrast, no blood staining was found on the
passenger seat or in the front of the front passenger seat area.
Analysis of the blood samples retrieved from inside the vehicle revealed that the
DNA profile matched that of Mr. Lemus-Vargas. No DNA evidence collected in the car
showed any blood from Mr. Soliz, although he claimed to have bled "like a stuck pig."
RP (August 24, 2011) at 632.
Dr. Daniel Selove, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Mr.
Lemus-Vargas testified as to his observations and findings. He testified to the multiple
stab wounds on Mr. Lemus-Vargas body and that several were defensive wounds.
Additionally, Dr. Selove had an opportunity to analyze photographs of Mr. Soliz's
wounds and was of the opinion that those wounds would be consistent with several
scenarios, including defensive wounds, but would also be consistent with a hand which
had been holding the knife slipping off the handle, or self-inflicted wounds.
The jury found Mr. Soliz guilty of the lesser-included offense of second degree
manslaughter with a deadly weapon. Mr. Soliz appealed.
4
No.30233-4-III
State v. Soliz
ANALYSIS
A. Evidence Sufficiency
Mr. Soliz contends the State failed to satisfy its burden of disproving self defense
beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, he argues the evidence established he reasonably
believed he was in imminent danger of harm and was therefore entitled to use reasonable
force to defend himself. In short, Mr. Soliz essentially asks us reassess the credibility of
the testimony and other evidence. The jury is charged with assessing the facts, not the
court. Here, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
Sufficient evidence supports a conviction if, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the charged crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hosier, 157 Wn.2d 1, 8,
133 P.3d 936 (2006). On appeal, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in
favor of the State and interpret them most strongly against the defendant. Id. In the
sufficiency context, we consider circumstantial evidence as probative as direct evidence.
State v. Goodman, 150 Wn.2d 774,781,83 P.3d 410 (2004).
An appellate court will overturn a jury verdict "only when it is clearly unsupported
by substantial evidence." Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wn.2d 93, 108,864 P.2d
937 (1994). Substantial evidence is "sufficient evidence to persuade a rational, fair-
minded person of the truth of the premise." Westmark Dev. Corp. v. City ojBurien, 140
Wn. App. 540, 557, 166 P.3d 813 (2007). The presence of conflicting evidence, without
5
No. 30233-4-111
State v. Soliz
more, does not undermine ajury's verdict. When reviewing the evidence, an appellate
court does not "reweigh the evidence, draw its own inferences, or substitute its judgment
for the jury." Id.
A person is gUilty of second degree manslaughter when he or she causes the death
of another person through his or her criminal negligence. RCW 9A.32.070(1). A person
acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a
wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such a risk constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in that
. situation. RCW 9A.08.0 10( 1)(d). Criminal negligence can also be established if the
person acted recklessly. RCW 9A.08.01O(2). A person acts recklessly when he or she
disregards a known substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and the disregard of
such a risk is a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would
exercise in the same situation. RCW 9A.08.010(l)(c).
In defense of manslaughter, a defendant may allege self-defense. A defendant
may lawfully use force in self-defense if (1) the defendant subjectively feared that he or
she was in imminent danger of harm from the victim, (2) this belief was objectively
reasonable, (3) the defendant exercised no greater force than was reasonably necessary,
and (4) the defendant was not the aggressor. State v. Callahan, 87 Wn. App. 925,929,
943 P.2d 676 (1997). Once the defendant properly raises the issue, the State must
6
No. 30233-4-III
State v. Soliz
disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862,
215 P.3d 177 (2009).
According to Mr. Soliz, he and Mr. Lemus-Vargas had an argument in the car.
Mr. Flores, however, did not hear an argument before he exited the vehicle. According to
Mr. Soliz, he then observed Mr. Lemus-Vargas had a knife and tried to get it away from
him. The forensic pathologist testified that Mr. Lemus-Vargas had cuts on his ankle, lip,
wrist and hairline with a two-inch deep stab wound into the back of his shoulder, and four
stab wounds on the right side of his back. A forensic examination of Mr. Lemus-Vargas'
car revealed blood staining in and around the driver's seat, as well as between the seat
and door. There was blood on the steering wheel, as well as on the console. In contrast,
there was no blood staining on the passenger seat or in the front of the front passenger
seat area. DNA analysis of blood samples retrieved from inside the vehicle matched Mr.
Lemus-Vargas; none matched Mr. Soliz who claimed he was stabbed in the car and bled
like a stuck pig. Dr. Selove, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Mr.
Lemus-Vargas, testified that. several of Mr. Lemus-Vargas' wounds were defensive
wounds. Dr. Selove had an opportunity to analyze photographs of Mr. Soliz's wounds
and was of the opinion that those wounds could have possibly been self-inflicted.
Based on the above, sufficient evidence exists to support the jury's finding that
Mr. Soliz was guilty of second degree manslaughter. While he alleged self-defense, the
State satisfied its burden of disproving self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It was
7
No.30233-4-III
State v. Soliz
within the jury's province to weigh the disputed evidence, draw inferences, and decide
witness credibility. The presence of conflicting evidence, without more, does not
undermine a jury's verdict.
B. Statement of Additional Grounds (SAG)
Without elaboration, Mr. Soliz asserts in his SAG that he was denied a fair trial
because insufficient DNA testing was done and the prosecutor deliberately misled the
jury. RAP lO.lO(c) provides, "Reference to the record and citation to authorities are not
necessary or required, but the appellate court will not consider a defendant/appellant's
statement of additional grounds for review if it does not inform the court of the nature
and occurrence of alleged errors." Because Mr. Soliz does not explain what DNA
evidence was not tested or insufficiently tested and does not explain what State argument
was allegedly misleading, his claims are too vague for us to address.
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.
Brown, J.
WE CONCUR:
Korsmo, C.l
8