Sustakoski v. State

Convicted of being a principal to burglary of a structure, appellant contended that he had no intent to engage in a burglary. He claims that the state failed to introduce evidence inconsistent with his reasonable hypothesis of innocence, namely that he did not intend to engage in a burglary. We affirm, as the state introduced compe*307tent substantial evidence inconsistent with his hypothesis of evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state. We also affirm his sentence over his objection that the state failed to prove that he qualified as a violent career criminal.

As the court said…