Appeals Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Wapato Drive-By Shooting

The Washington Court of Appeals has upheld Xavier Anthony Randall’s second-degree murder conviction in a fatal Wapato drive-by shooting, rejecting his argument that prosecutors failed to prove his role in the killing.

The unanimous Oct. 19, 2026, ruling concluded that surveillance footage, police testimony and forensic evidence allowed jurors to find Randall was driving a car involved in the shooting and was either a shooter or an accomplice. Prosecutors did not have to establish that he personally fired a shot that killed Charlie Jimenez.

The decision leaves intact a 244-month prison sentence, or 20 years and four months, imposed in March 2025. The appeal arose from a Yakima County Superior Court judgment signed by Judge Kevin S. Naught.

Chief Judge Cecily Hazelrigg wrote the unpublished Division I opinion. Judges Bill Bowman and Michael Diaz concurred.

According to the opinion, a Honda Accord and a silver Dodge Neon stopped briefly outside Jimenez’s Wapato home shortly before 11 p.m. on May 5, 2023. People in both vehicles fired at Jimenez, who was standing on the sidewalk, before the cars sped away. He died from multiple gunshot wounds.

About 10 minutes after receiving a report of the shooting, Toppenish Police Sgt. Jordan Vanderhoof began following a silver Neon matching the description provided by dispatch. The car accelerated when he activated his patrol lights, then crashed into a power pole after failing to negotiate a turn.

Randall ran from the driver’s side of the car. Vanderhoof pursued him on foot and detained him. Officers recovered a 9-millimeter Smith & Wesson pistol near the crashed vehicle.

A jury convicted Randall after a joint trial with a co-defendant that began in January 2025. The verdicts included second-degree felony murder, drive-by shooting and attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle. Jurors also found that Randall was armed with a firearm during the murder.

The trial court subsequently dismissed the separate drive-by shooting conviction without prejudice on double-jeopardy grounds because it merged with the murder conviction. That dismissal did not remove drive-by shooting as the underlying crime supporting the felony-murder verdict.

The murder instructions required prosecutors to prove that Randall committed drive-by shooting and that he or an accomplice caused Jimenez’s death in the course of and in furtherance of that crime. Prosecutors also had to prove that Jimenez was not a participant.

Randall’s appeal challenged whether the prosecution had presented enough evidence to sustain that verdict. He disputed proof that he drove the Neon during the shooting and argued that no eyewitness identified him as a shooter or placed a weapon in his possession at the time.

The appellate court reviewed those arguments under a standard that requires judges to view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the prosecution’s favor.

The question was whether a rational juror could find the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The panel did not retry the case or reassess witness credibility, and it treated circumstantial and direct evidence as equally reliable for that review.

The judges found several pieces of evidence supported the conclusion that Randall drove the Neon during the shooting.

Witnesses described a silver Neon with a distinctive rear spoiler. Surveillance footage showed vehicles matching the Neon and Accord traveling near the shooting scene before and after the gunfire. Police dash-camera footage later showed Randall leaving the Neon through the driver’s door just 10 seconds after the crash.

The jury also heard unchallenged testimony that the Neon belonged to Randall’s cousin and that Randall was known to drive it. Together, the court concluded, those facts allowed jurors to infer he was driving when Jimenez was shot.

The panel also noted contradictions in Randall’s appellate brief, which disputed evidence placing him in the car while elsewhere acknowledging that he occupied the driver’s seat. But the court said the trial evidence independently supported the jury’s conclusion.

The firearm evidence provided another link. Officers found five 9-millimeter cartridge casings and a box of ammunition inside the Neon.

A Washington State Patrol firearms scientist identified the casings recovered from the car as having been fired from the recovered Smith & Wesson pistol. The opinion also described matching casings recovered outside Jimenez’s home.

A State Patrol analyst tested DNA mixtures on the pistol’s muzzle and grip. Her results strongly supported Randall as a contributor to both mixtures, compared with mixtures from unrelated people selected at random.

The court considered that evidence alongside the gun’s recovery, the ammunition and the vehicle footage.

The panel also pointed to the jury’s finding that Randall was armed during the shooting. That finding showed jurors credited the evidence linking him to the pistol, the court said, and the appellate judges would not reassess that credibility determination.

Randall nevertheless maintained that the absence of proof identifying him as the shooter defeated the murder charge. The panel rejected that argument because the jury had also been instructed on accomplice liability.

Under those instructions, an accomplice could be held responsible for another person’s crime by helping or agreeing to help plan or commit it, knowing that the assistance would promote or facilitate the crime. Mere presence at the scene or knowledge of someone else’s criminal activity was insufficient.

The prosecution’s theory was that Randall drove the Neon and the firearm to Jimenez’s home, someone in the car fired at Jimenez, and Randall drove the vehicle and gun away.

The court concluded that the evidence supported a reasonable inference that he drove during both the shooting and the escape, supporting conviction as an accomplice even without proof that he fired the fatal shots.

Randall had also raised a prosecutorial-misconduct claim in his opening brief but expressly abandoned it during oral argument on Sept. 23. The panel did not decide that issue.