of the evidence that formed the factual basis for the acceptance of his plea. He is correct that the trial judge may not accept a plea without first being satisfied that there is a factual basis for it. CrR 4.2(d); State v. Saas, 118 Wn.2d 37, 43, 820 P.2d 505 (1991). However, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is not required; the trial judge was merely obligated to find sufficient evidence for a jury to determine Easterlin was armed. Id. ¶[15 In this case, an officer saw a gun on Easterlin’s lap. That is more than sufficient for the trial judge to find a connection between Easterlin and the weapon. f 16 There was also ample evidence from which a trier of fact could find Easterlin was armed to protect the drugs. See State v. Simonson, 91 Wn. App. 874, 883, 960 P.2d 955 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Easterlin’s statement on plea of guilty
holding that officers premiranda questions concerning active methamphetamine production were within the public safety exception holding that a nexus exists if the weapons were there to protect an active methamphetamine manufacturing operation holding that the purchaser could sustain a 93a claim against the president and vicepresident of a manufacturing company because they took an active role in the dealings with the plaintiff holding that a nexus between the corporate officers or directors official activity and the matter for which indemnification is sought must be shown though no more than a nexus whether a nexus exists is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court considering all the circumstances surrounding the proposed indemnification holding that no federal nexus is required