Jacob Morrow v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ANDREE LAYTON ROAF, JUDGE

DIVISION II

JACOB MORROW

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR02-136

OCTOBER 9, 2002

APPEAL FROM PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR2001-1373]

HONORABLE JOHN B. PLEGGE, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant Jacob Morrow was charged with theft of property. Following a bench trial, Morrow was convicted of the lesser-included offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Morrow to one year in the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility and ordered him to pay a $1000 fine. On appeal, Morrow challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm.

At trial, North Little Rock Police Officer Charles Briscoe testified that on February 17, 2001, he saw Morrow driving a blue Cadillac DeVille. Briscoe testified that Morrow seemed nervous, because he looked at Briscoe a couple of times and then started traveling at a high rate of speed. Briscoe followed Morrow to a Texaco station and ran the vehicle's license plate number. The number came back with no information, which Briscoe testified made him suspicious. When Morrow got back into the car and drove away, Briscoe initiated a traffic stop. Briscoe obtained Morrow's identification and the vehicle identification number (VIN). When Briscoe ran the VIN, the car came up as stolen. At that point, Briscoe arrested Morrow and read him his Miranda rights.According to Briscoe's testimony, Morrow explained that the vehicle belonged to an elderly woman that he lived with, who was in poor health. Briscoe testified that Morrow stated that he had a very bad cocaine addiction and that the addiction makes him do bad things, such as taking advantage of the elderly woman. Morrow further stated to Briscoe that he had had the car for approximately two days and that he planned to return it, but that he had not yet made contact with the woman who owned the vehicle.

Ed Baxley testified that Morrow and his wife lived with his mother, Helen Baxley, and that they paid a small amount of rent and assisted Mrs. Baxley, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. Mr. Baxley stated that the car Morrow was driving belonged to his sister, but that the car was kept at his mother's house. Mr. Baxley testified that neither he nor his sister had given Morrow permission to use the car, although his mother had given Morrow permission in the past to use the car for short trips. However, Mr. Baxley testified that Morrow did not have permission to take the car for an extended period of time.

On appeal, Morrow challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. The State contends that this argument is not preserved because the trial court granted Morrow's request to reduce the charge of theft of property to unauthorized use of a vehicle. We agree. After the State presented its case, Morrow made a motion for dismissal on the charge of theft of property, which was denied. Morrow then requested that, in the alternative, the charge be reduced to unauthorized use of a vehicle, which the trial court granted. Morrow made no further arguments with respect to the reduced charge, and the trial court found him guilty of this offense and proceeded to sentencing.

To preserve for appeal the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction for a lesser-included offense, a defendant's motion must either name the lesser-included offense oraddress its elements. Ramaker v. State, 345 Ark. 225, 46 S.W.3d 519 (2001). A defendant's failure to address the lesser-included offense precludes appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining it. Id. Because Morrow failed to make a motion for dismissal on the lesser-included offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle, his argument is not preserved for appellate review. Moreover, after Morrow's motion to dismiss the theft of property charge was denied, the trial court granted his request to reduce the charge to unauthorized use of a vehicle. Where the appellant has received all the relief that he has requested, he cannot complain on appeal that he did not receive further relief. Ashlock v. State, 64 Ark. App. 253, 983 S.W.2d 448 (1998); see also Spencer v. State, 285 Ark. 339, 686 S.W.2d 436 (1985) (finding that defendant could not complain on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to quash the information or to suppress the testimony of three witnesses, where he moved to quash the information, or alternatively, to suppress the testimony or for a continuance, and the court granted a continuance). Thus, Morrow has waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle.

Affirmed.

Neal and Vaught, JJ., agree.