Cedric Austin v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

TERRY CRABTREE, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

CEDRIC AUSTIN

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 00-23

AUGUST 30, 2000

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH DIVISION

[NO. CR 99-2123]

HONORABLE JOHN W. LANGSTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

On September 16, 1999, a Pulaski County Circuit Court found appellant Cedric Austin guilty of robbery. The trial court sentenced appellant to six years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Corrections. For his sole point on appeal, the appellant challenges the denial of his directed verdict motion. We affirm.

On February 6, 1999, appellant was involved in a physical alteration at Riverfront park in Little Rock with Mr. Sean Sims. Appellant struck Mr. Sims with his belt and fists. During the fight, appellant's co-defendant, Neal Holliday, approached Mr. Sims and stole his wallet, which contained $65.00 in cash. After Mr. Holliday took the wallet, appellant stopped fighting with Mr. Sims and the two men walked away. Two to three minutes following the incident, Holiday and appellant returned to the park and were seen together

counting cash. Appellant and Holliday left the park together. Appellant claims on appeal that there is insufficient evidence to prove he committed robbery because there is no proof that he was an accomplice to the robbery or that he had the intent to commit the robbery.

A motion for directed verdict is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Killian v. State, 60 Ark. App. 127, 128, 959 S.W.2d 432, 433 (1998). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, this Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirms if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. Wilson v. State, 56 Ark. App. 47, 48, 939 S.W.2d 313, 314 (1997). Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty and precision, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to speculation and conjecture. B.J. v. State, 56 Ark. App. 35, 37, 937 S.W.2d 675, 676 (1997). The fact that some evidence is circumstantial does not render it insubstantial. Wilson, supra.

Arkansas Code Annotated Section 5-12-102 (Repl. 1997) provides that "[a] person commits robbery if, with the purpose of committing a felony or misdemeanor theft or resisting apprehension immediately thereafter, he employs or threatens to immediately employ physical force upon another." The elements of the robbery statute have been met. Two witnesses saw appellant attack Mr. Sims while Holiday stole Mr. Sims' wallet. Appellant was then seen walking through the park just a few minutes after the robbery counting cash. Contrary to appellant's claim, the State need not prove the elements of accomplice liability because the appellant acted as a principal. Appellant attacked Mr. Sims and was seen minutes later counting cash with Holliday. The State produced substantial proof of the appellant's guilt for robbery, and the trial court did not err by denying the appellant's motions for directed verdict.

Affirmed.

Pittman and Jennings, JJ., agree.