James Kelly Beasley v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN E. JENNINGS, JUDGE

DIVISION I

CACR 00-888

April 25, 2001

JAMES KELLY BEASLEY APPEAL FROM PULASKI COUNTY

APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT

VS.

HONORABLE JOHN W. LANGSTON,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

A jury found James Kelly Beasley guilty of robbery and theft of property, and he was sentenced to five years' probation and one year probation, respectively. Appellant's only argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on the robbery charge. We disagree and affirm.

Jory Withers, security manager at Target in west Little Rock, testified that on April 5, 1999, he was walking the sales floor when he noticed appellant in the automotive section. Withers noted that the next time he saw appellant, appellant had taken off his coat and laid it in the cart next to a package of strobe lights. He followed appellant into the toy section where appellant tore the packaging of the lights apart and placed the lights, which were small enough to fit in the palm of one's hand, into his coat sleeve. Appellant went through the checkout lanes where he paid for certain other items not including the lights. Withers testified that his partner, Chris Peacock, maintained live observation of appellant while he went to the office to begin video surveillance. Appellant had parked about fifty yards from Target under the Home Depot canopy. Withers saw appellant put the merchandise that he had paid for into the trunk of his car, and he then saw appellant take off his coat and remove the lights from the sleeve. He met Peacock at the Target entrance, and they confronted appellant together as he was driving away. Withers testified that, when he identified himself as Target security, appellant's demeanor changed and that appellant suddenly "gassed" his vehicle. He said that Peacock yelled a warning that appellant had a gun and that he stepped out of the way of the car before it hit him. Withers testified that, at the time they approached appellant, he was on the median between Target and Home Depot.

Chris Peacock testified that appellant was wearing a heavy leather jacket and that it was hot in the store that day. Peacock stated that when he and Withers followed appellant to the toy section, he saw appellant looking at the ceiling and all around and that he heard appellant tearing into the plastic package containingthe strobe lights. He testified that the discarded package was later recovered, and that the two lights were worth about $20.00. He followed appellant outside the store and peeked around the corner until Withers joined him a few minutes later. Peacock stated that appellant was not on the Target parking lot at the time he and Withers attempted to apprehend him.

Officer Linda Keel testified that appellant ultimately turned himself into the police department and that he stated that he did not point a gun at anyone nor did he rob the store. Keel also testified that appellant stated that Withers and Peacock did not identify themselves to him.

Appellant testified that he drives a classic, red Corvette convertible and that it is not unusual for people to want to admire the car. He said that, because it had rained earlier in the day, he had parked under the Home Depot canopy because he could not put the top up on the car. He testified that Withers and Peacock approached his car as he was pulling away and that Withers pointed his finger at him and told him to put the car into neutral. Appellant stated that he did not like the tone of Withers' voice so he "gassed" his car, and the tires spun on the wet pavement. He stated that he was not trying to hit either man and that he was just scared. Appellant testified that he turned himself in about a month and a half later because he found out that there was awarrant for his arrest. Appellant denied taking anything from Target.

A motion for a directed verdict is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Stewart v. State, 338 Ark. 608, 999 S.W.2d 684 (1999). We review the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and affirm if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Pond v. State, 69 Ark. App. 346, 14 S.W.3d 525 (2000). Evidence is substantial, whether direct or circumstan tial, if it is of sufficient force to compel a conclusion one way or the other with reasonable certainty. Jones v. State, 336 Ark. 191, 984 S.W.2d 432 (1999).

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. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-102(a) (Repl. 1997). Appellant argues that because the incident in the parking lot where he accelerated his car with Withers standing in front of it did not occur immediately after the theft but rather, was some time and distance away, it was insufficient to sustain the robbery convic tion. Appellant argues that he was not even on Target property and that his car was parked some fifty yards away. He contends that there was no pursuit during all of the time that he walked to his car, placed his merchandise in the car, and attempted to drive away. Appellant submits that the incident in the parking lot wasa separate occurrence and that there had been a clear break in the chain of events. We disagree. "Immediate" in terms of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-102(a) has been defined as "a reasonable time in view of the particular facts and circumstances of the case under consideration." Becker v. State, 298 Ark. 438, 768 S.W.2d 527 (1989). The clear legislative intent was to define robbery so as to cover situations where persons who have committed a theft choose to employ force to avoid arrest. Williams v. State, 11 Ark. App. 11, 665 S.W.2d 299 (1984). The trial court's decision to deny the directed-verdict motion and submit the case to the jury was correct. Whether the threat to employ physical force was made immediately after the theft occurred was a fact question for the jury to determine.

Affirmed.

Bird and Griffen, JJ., agree.