Jason Brian Gillespie v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE

DIVISION III

JASON BRIAN GILLESPIE

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR02-446

January 8, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

CR2001-1392

HON. WILLARD PROCTOR, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

This is a no-merit appeal. On April 20, 2001, the State filed a single-count information charging the appellant, Jason Brian Gillespie, with having committed, on or about February 28, 2001, the Class Y felony of rape, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(1) (Repl. 1997). The information asserted that on or about February 28, 2001, appellant engaged in sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion with L.H. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial, and the case was tried before the court on January 7, 2002. Appellant was convicted of Class Y felony rape and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(j) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, the appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that this appeal is without merit. Counsel's motion was accompanied by a brief purportedly referring to everything in the record that might arguably support an appeal, together with a list of adverse rulings, and a record of all motions and requests made by theappellant, and denied by the court, and a statement of the reasons why counsel considers there to be nothing in the record which will support the appeal. The State concurs that the appellant's counsel has complied with Rule 4-3(j) and that the appeal has no merit. The clerk of this court furnished the appellant with a copy of his counsel's brief and notified him of his right to file pro se points of appeal; however, appellant has not filed a list of points.

At trial, there were only two rulings that were adverse to appellant, the denial of his motion for directed verdict and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Jones v. State, 348 Ark. 619, 74 S.W.3d 663 (2002). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this court considers only the evidence that supports the guilty verdict, and views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Id. The test is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence that is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or another. Id. Resolution of conflicts in testimony and assessment of the credibility of witnesses is for the fact finder. Id. Furthermore, the trial court is not required to believe any witness's testimony, especially that of the accused, since he is the person most interested in the outcome of the case. Id.

Our supreme court has repeatedly held that the uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction. See Jones, supra, and Russey v. State, 336 Ark. 401, 985 S.W.2d 316 (1999). The testimony of the victim, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, constitutes substantial evidence that appellant raped her, and therefore is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration on January 15, 2002, which was denied by operation of law thirty days later on February 17, 2002. Subsequent to the denial, appellant failedto file an amended notice of appeal stating that he intended to appeal the denial of his post-trial motion; therefore, the issue of whether the denial of the motion for reconsideration was erroneous was not preserved for review. See Rains v. State, 329 Ark. 607, 953 S.W.2d 48 (1997); Ark. R. Crim. P. 2(b)(2). Additionally, the motion for reconsideration asserted that the victim's testimony was inconsistent, and the issue of witness credibility was a matter to be determined by the trial judge, as the trier of fact, rather than this court. See Harris v. State, 72 Ark. App. 227, 35 S.W.3d 819 (2000).

From our review of the record and counsel's brief, we conclude that there has been full compliance with Rule 4-3(j) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals and that none of the rulings adverse to appellant provide a meritorious ground for reversal. Consequently, we grant counsel's request to be relieved and affirm appellant's conviction.

Affirmed.

Crabtree and Roaf, JJ., agree.