State Of Washington v. Dmitry Nagornyuk, 74637-5

Nagornyuk was convicted of possession of a stolen vehicle after police observed a stolen Honda with two occupants and later detected Nagornyuk near the car in a casino parking lot.
The vehicle's ignition key had been filed down, and a metal file was found on Nagornyuk during a search incident to arrest.
Nagornyuk claimed he was a passenger and that the driver asked him to stay by the car; the driver’s identity was not conclusively established.
The State charged NM with taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree and possession of a stolen vehicle; the jury found him guilty on both counts.
The trial court merged the counts for sentencing and sentenced only on possession of a stolen vehicle; the judgment identified count one but count one was later remanded for removal.
Nagornyuk appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence and the dual-convictions issue, among others.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for possession	Nagornyuk possessed the stolen Honda.	Insufficient evidence of actual or constructive possession.	Sufficient evidence supported possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
Constructive possession evidence	Facts showed dominion and control over the vehicle.	No proof of control beyond proximity.	The record supports dominion and control sufficient for constructive possession.
Knowledge of theft	Nagornyuk knew the Honda was stolen.	Did not know the vehicle was stolen; credibility of explanations for the file and stereo disputed.	Jury could reasonably infer knowledge of theft from the totality of circumstances.
Dual convictions/merger	State validly charged and the holdings could stand independently.	If theft was proven, possession should merge and not be a separate conviction.	First conviction is vacated on remand; the appeal preserves judgment removal of count one.
Correction of judgment	Judgment should reflect only the possession conviction.	N/A	Remanded to remove reference to count one; correction ordered.

State v. Rodriguez, 187 Wn. App. 922 (2015) (evidentiary standard for insufficient evidence review)
State v. Garcia, 179 Wn.2d 828 (2014) (constructive possession framework)
State v. Engel, 210 P.3d 1007 (2009) (possession elements and standards)
State v. Callahan, 459 P.2d 400 (1969) (possession/ownership distinctions in theft cases)
State v. Davis, 340 P.3d 820 (2014) (lead opinion on related evidence credibility and possession)
State v. Bowen, 239 P.3d 1114 (2010) (evidence sufficiency and constructive possession considerations)
State v. Melick, 131 Wn. App. 835 (2006) (instructional merger/dual convictions context)
State v. Nolan, 141 Wn.2d 620 (2000) (appellate costs and indigency presumptions)