Jermaine Deangelo Jacko v. State of Arkansas

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

OLLY NEAL, Judge

DIVISION IV

CACR02-260

DECEMBER 11, 2002

JERMAINE DEANGELO JACKO AN APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

v. [CR2000-4213]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE MARION A. HUMPHREY,

JUDGE

APPELLEE

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Jermaine Jacko, was convicted of theft by receiving property with a value of $2,500. He was sentenced to seven years in the Arkansas Department of Correction, with two years suspended upon the condition that he pay $620 in restitution to the victim, Stacey Carr. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

On August 26, 2000, Stacey Carr parked her 1997 Nissan Altima in the parking lot at First United Methodist Church in Little Rock while she attended a wedding at the church. After the wedding, Carr left the vehicle overnight in the church's parking lot. When she returned the following day, her vehicle was gone. Shortly thereafter, Carr reported hervehicle missing.

Days later, on September 9, 2000, officers with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's Department of Public Safety stopped a 1997 Nissan Altima, that fit the description of Carr's vehicle, for traveling forty miles an hour in a twenty-mile an hour zone. Appellant was later identified as the driver of the vehicle, but at the time of the stop he gave a false name and date of birth. Because appellant did not have a driver's license in his possession and the car was not registered to him, the officers did not allow appellant to leave in the vehicle. The vehicle was parked on a parking lot, and appellant was allowed to go. Later that night, the vehicle was impounded. Three days later, appellant was taken into custody on an unrelated matter. While in custody, he admitted to having possession of Carr's vehicle. He also admitted that he knew the vehicle was stolen. Appellant was subsequently charged and found guilty of theft by receiving property with a value of $2,500 or more.

On appeal, appellant asserts that "the circuit court erred in denying [his] motion to dismiss the charge of theft by receiving of property with a value of $2,500 or more because the State failed to introduce substantial evidence that the stolen automobile [he] received had a value of $2,500 or more on September 9, 2000, when he was found in possession of the automobile." The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Alexander v. State, 78 Ark. App. 56, 77 S.W.3d 544 (2002). Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Turner v. State, 349 Ark. 715, 80 S.W.3d 382 (2002). When the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidenceconvicting him, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Id. A person commits the offense of theft by receiving if he receives, retains, or disposes of stolen property of another person, knowing that it was stolen or having good reason to believe it was stolen. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(a) (Repl. 1997). Theft by receiving is a Class B felony if the value of the property is $2,500 or more. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(e)(1) (Repl. 1997). Value is defined as the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense or if the market value of the property cannot be ascertained, the cost of replacing the property within a reasonable time after the offense. Christian v. State, 54 Ark. App. 191, 925 S.W.2d 428 (1996). The State has the burden of establishing the value of the property. Coley v. State, 302 Ark. 526, 790 S.W.2d 899 (1990). Although the preferred method of establishing value is through expert testimony, the price paid by an owner can be used to determine market value of property when the purchase is not too remote in time and bears a reasonable relation to present value. Williams v. State, 65 Ark. App. 176, 986 S.W.2d 123 (1999).

At appellant's bench trial, Stacey Car testified that she purchased the vehicle in 1999 for about $16,000. She described the car as being in good condition on August 26, 2000. A year had transpired between the time the vehicle was purchased and the time it was stolen. This time span is not too remote to preclude an assessment of the value of the vehicle on September 9. Furthermore, appellant testified that the vehicle looked new when he received it. We conclude that there was substantial evidence establishing that the car had a value of $2,500 or more; therefore, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Stroud, C.J., and Baker, J., agree.