Willie Lee Moore v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

April 15, 2004

WILLIE MOORE

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 02-983

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, CR 2000-248, HONORABLE DAVID N. LASER, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Per Curiam

Appellant was found guilty by jury of rape and residential burglary. He was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed on direct appeal, concluding that appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for review. Moore v. State, CACR 01-864 slip op. (Ark. App. Jan. 30, 2002)(unpublished). Appellant, acting pro se, filed a petition and amended petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 37. The circuit court held a hearing and thereafter denied relief. Appellant now contends that the circuit court erred in doing so.

Appellant contends that he is actually innocent of rape because his DNA did not match the semen sample tested by the Arkansas State Crime Lab in this case. Further, he asserts that his victim's testimony was unreliable because her statements to hospital staff and police contained inconsistencies. We refuse to consider appellant's arguments. Appellant's claim of actual innocence amounts to a direct challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his rape conviction. Sufficiency challenges cannot be raised in Rule 37 proceedings. Sanford v. State, 342 Ark. 22, 28, 25 S.W.3d 414, 418 (2000). Moreover, the weighing of evidence lies within the province of the jury, and the jury is free to believe all or part of a witness's testimony. Williams v. State, 351 Ark. 215,222, 91 S.W.3d 54, 58 (2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 2257 (2003). This court is bound by the jury's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses. Id. The circuit court's denial of postconviction relief is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Glaze, J., not participating.