State Of Washington, Respondent V Antwane Goolsby, Appellant (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED rJ` U` RTrr Cw° isFJi!{ ST', . 9' ` l THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGT IN u" rPPEAs j ti" 71 SrIfGT PU DIVISION II No. 43467 -9 -II STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, V. UNPUBLISHED OPINION ANTWANE GOOLSBY, Appellant. HUNT, P. J. Antwane Goolsby appeals his jury trial convictions for first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and unlawful possession of a firearm and the jury' s trial special verdicts court' s " to finding the presence of two gang aggravators. Goolsby argues that the instructions violated his right to a jury trial and the evidence is convict" insufficient to support the jury' s special verdicts findings. We affirm. FACTS 1. MURDER AND UNLAWFUL FIREARM POSSESSION Antwane Verbatim Report Goolsby of is a member of Proceedings ( VRP) the " Neighborhood Compton Crips" at 390. street gang. 7 Goolsby recruited 19- year -old Lawrence McWilliams to join this gang, initiation into which required McWilliams to engage in a street fight. After McWilliams' residence initiation, Rauwn Bernard drove them to Bernard' s girlfriend' s in Tacoma. While there, both Bernard and McWilliams saw Goolsby carrying a gun. S No. 43467 -9 -II That evening, Goolsby received a call from the mother of his two children, Alishya Breedlove, who had been at her friend Tiffany Hawkins' 30th birthday party in Tacoma with some 24 As the ' party was winding down, Breedlove received a call from her other people. friend Rachel Williams and drove to the Walgreens at 38th and Pacific Avenue to pick her up. Riding with Breedlove to pick up Williams were five or six men, including one that she knew as " No Good," whose real name she believed was ." James." 6 VRP at 334. On the way back to Hawkins' house, one of Breedlove' s male passengers ( not the victim, James Smith) started " acting crazy," walking around inside her van, and blocking her rear view. 6 VRP at 336. Breedlove asked the .man to stop, but he refused. As the men became louder, Breedlove warned them that she was going to Goolsby. Eventually Breedlove did call Goolsby and asked him call to help get the men out of her van. But when she arrived back at Hawkins' house, everyone got out of her without major van incident. And by the time Goolsby arrived with Bernard and McWilliams, Breedlove was no longer having problems with the men. As Breedlove and Williams were leaving Hawkins' house, Breedlove spoke to Goolsby from her van. When Goolsby asked Breedlove where the men that had bothered her were, she pointed to the group of men standing on the sidewalk but told Goolsby not to worry about it. James Smith was among the group of men. Nevertheless, Bernard then drove Goolsby and McWilliams to the group of men. Goolsby gave McWilliams one of his ski masks, and they both put them on. Goolsby men ran off. gang. 7 VRP then exited According at 446. the car armed with a pistol. to McWilliams, Goolsby all three began arguing were members of with 9 As he approached Smith, the other two Smith, the " who said, "[ Hilltop Crip[ s]" street I]t' s Hilltop Crip and of No. 43467 -9 -II you." 7 VRP at 448. you got or you might die. You the collar and pointed unarmed. Goolsby gun at ordered Smith to " down," which means " give up everything 8 VRP might get shot." his head. skin at 487. Goolsby grabbed Smith by his Goolsby called McWilliams over to rob Smith, who was According to Bernard, as Smith tried to run, Goolsby shot him in the head, firing seven to eight shots; according to McWilliams, Smith took off running and Goolsby chased after him, emptying his entire clip shooting at Smith. After Goolsby shot him, Smith fell to the ground, twitched, and stopped moving. Medical examiner Jacquelyn Morhaime later determined that Smith had been shot five times in the back and FBI agents eventually arrested Goolsby and McWilliams in Las arm. Vegas several weeks later. II. PROCEDURE The State 9A. 32. 030( 1)( charged of 9. 94A. 535( 3)( with premeditated first degree murder ( count 1) ( RCW with a firearm sentencing enhancement; felony first degree murder, also with a a)), firearm sentencing possession Goolsby a enhancement ( count firearm ( aa) and count 2) ( RCW 9A.32. 030( 1)( 3) ( RCW 9. 94A.535( 3)( 9. 41. 040) RCW s) 1. c)); The gang aggravating and first degree unlawful State circumstances added two to RCW 2, all counts. The trial court granted Goolsby' s motion to proceed pro se and later reconfirmed Goolsby' s election after an extended colloquy. 1 The legislature amended RCW 9. 41. 040 in 2011. The amendments did not alter the statute in any way relevant to this case; accordingly, we cite the current version of the statute. 2 The legislature amended RCW 9. 94A.535 in 2010, 2011 and 2013. The amendments did not alter the statute in any way relevant to this case; accordingly, we cite the current version of the statute. 3 No. 43467 -9 -II In all of its " to convict" instructions, the trial court included the following language: If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. Clerk' s Papers ( CP) 23), 373 ( Jury at 368 ( Jury Instruction 19), 371 ( Instruction 24). Jury Instruction 22), 372 ( Jury Instruction Goolsby objected to some of the jury instructions, but he did not object to the " to convict" instructions use of the language about the " duty to return a verdict of guilty." The 2) felony jury returned verdicts of first degree guilty on ( count 1) premediated 3) first degree unlawful murder, and ( count first degree murder, ( count possession of a firearm. The jury also returned special verdicts finding that Goolsby ( 1) had been armed with a firearm during the commission of counts 1, 2, hierarchy benefit, and the 3 " to obtain or maintain and or CP or to gain, profit ... membership[.]" 2); and ( 2) had committed the crimes charged in his ... of an organization, association, aggrandizement, influence, 1 murder ( counts membership to identifiable group" for or 387 -392; at or a criminal see also advance and with street RCW his ... position in the intent to " cause ... gang, [ in] its reputation, 9. 94A. 535( 3)( aa); RCW 9. 94A.535( 3)( s). At sentencing, the trial court did not adopt the jury' s gang aggravator findings and did not impose this an exceptional sentence murder constituted Goolsby' based s" on third these strike," aggravators. Instead, the trial court found that making him a persistent offender, and sentenced him to life in prison without parole under RCW 9. 94A.570. Goolsby appeals his convictions and the.jury' s special verdict gang aggravator findings. M No. 43467 -9 -II ANALYSIS I. " TO CONVICT" INSTRUCTION., Goolsby argues that the trial court' s " to convict" instructions violated his constitutional right to a jury trial because they told the jury that if it found each element of a crime proved beyond 368 ( a reasonable Jury doubt, the Instruction 19). jury Goolsby had a " argues duty" to return a verdict of that because there is no "` guilty. See, duty "' e. g., CP at to convict under the state or federal constitutions, this instruction affirmatively misled the jury about its power to acquit. Br. of Appellant at 16 ( citations omitted). We do not address Goolsby' s argument because he failed to object below on the grounds he now attempts to raise for the first time on appeal and does not meet the RAP 2. 5( a)( 3) exception to this 3 preservation requirement. II. GANG AGGRAVATOR FINDINGS Goolsby also argues that the jury erroneously returned special verdicts, finding the presence of two gang related aggravating factors, because ( 1) the State did not present sufficient evidence that he committed the charged offenses in order to advance or maintain his position in a criminal street gang and /or to benefit a criminal street gang or that his crimes were gang 3 We note, however, that even were we to address the merits of this argument, Goolsby would we have previously held that this " duty language" in the Washington Pattern Jury Instructions was not error, State v. Davis, 174 Wn. App. 623, 640 -41, 300 P. 3d 465, review lose because denied, 178 Wn.2d 1012 ( 2013) ( upholding a trial court' s " to convict" instructions, which advised the jury that it had a ` duty' to convict if it found the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt); State v. Brown, 130 Wn. App. 767, 770 -71, 124 P. 3d 663 2005) ( same); State v. Bonisisio, 92 Wn. App. 783, 793 -94, 964. P. 2d 1222 ( 1998) ( same). We decline Goolsby' s invitation to reconsider our previous decisions. See also Division One' s Wn. App. , 318 P. 3d 296 ( 2014), which similarly recent opinion in State v. Moore, upholds the very language that Goolsby attempts to challenge here. proved E No. 43467 -9 -II 4; ( motivated 2) gang membership cannot alone justify an exceptional sentence; and ( 3) generalized statements fail to satisfy the State' s burden to prove the gang aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt. Goolsby' s argument lacks merit because the trial court did not adopt the jury' s special verdict gang aggravator findings and did not impose ,an exceptional sentence based on gang aggravators. As Goolsby acknowledges, there is presently no gang- aggravated sentence for us to review. Nevertheless, he urges us. to address his sufficiency challenge because law under which Goolsby was sentenced is repealed or overturned, it is possible that Goolsby will be resentenced using a i] f in the future the " three strikes" regular offender score and standard range. In that circumstance, the State might be able to request an exceptional sentence based on the jury' s findings. Br. of future, issue Appellant a on at 15. This argument is based on speculation about what might happen in the possibility that is the not ripe for merits would constitute an our consideration now. improper advisory Wn.2d 61, 76 -77, 187 P. 3d 233 ( 2008) ( remand because it Wn.2d 606, resentencing); to 4 was 616 -17, see also render opinion on a See also State P. 3d v. the issue 639 ( 2008) ( Roberts, 77 Wn. aa); See State v. Eggleston, 164 would actually arise); State v. Davis, 163 declining to reach issue that might arise at App. sentencing deviation the trial RCW 9. 94A. 535( 3)( opinion. declining to reach issue concerning proceedings on speculative whether 184 Moreover, our resolution of this 678, 683, 894 P. 2d 1340 ( 1995) ( court might adopt). RCW 9. 94A. 535( 3)( s). declining Therefore, we do not No. 43467 -9 -II further address this argument. We affirm. 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. 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
