Roslean Sanford v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ANDREE LAYTON ROAF, JUDGE

DIVISION III

ROSLEAN SANFORD

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR02-897

MAY 28, 2003

APPEAL FROM CHICOT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR01-108-5]

HONORABLE JERRY E. MAZZANTI, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Roslean Sanford, was convicted by a jury of attempted capital murder and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. On appeal, Sanford challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. We affirm.

Appellant was charged with attempted capital murder after a shooting occurred at the home of her brother, Willie Sanford. At trial, Lavona Hale, the sister of the victim, Willie Hale, testified that when she and her other sister, Wanda Anderson, pulled up in front of the house, appellant and Mr. Hale were in an argument. Ms. Hale stated that appellant walked over to Anderson's car, got in, and told Anderson to take her home. Mr. Hale tried to get appellant out of the car, and appellant opened the door and hit him with her shoe. After appellant's brother joined the fight, appellant insisted that she had to go home, and she left in a car driven by another male. Ms. Hale testified that everything calmed down after appellant went home. A short time later, Ms. Hale stated that appellant returned riding her bicycle. After speaking briefly to Anderson and another witness, Brenda Jones Hale, Ms. Hale testified that appellant pulled a gun out of a pouch on her bike and shotWillie Hale in the leg, stating, "I told you about f***ing with me." Ms. Hale testified that Willie reached toward appellant and that appellant shot him a second time in the stomach. Appellant then got on her bike and stated as she was riding away, "Now, go tell the police that."

Brenda Jones Hale, Wanda Anderson, and Willie Hale testified to similar facts as those recounted by Lavona Hale. The victim, Willie Hale, also testified that the bullets hit him in his groin and stomach, with one of the bullets having lodged permanently in his back and the other bullet having exited his leg. He testified that he spent a week in the hospital and that he has long-term damage to his leg.

For the defense, appellant's son, Lewis Harden, testified that he saw Lavona Hale shoot Willie Hale. Willie Sanford, appellant's brother, testified that appellant did not leave the house or return on a bike. According to Sanford, he did not see who shot Mr. Hale, but he stated that it could not have been appellant because of where she was standing. Appellant testified that Mr. Hale had been threatening her and had hit her as she tried to get into Anderson's car. Appellant stated that she did not leave the residence until after she heard the shots fired. She testified that she did not shoot Mr. Hale and that the other witnesses stated that she did because they did not like her.

On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict because the State did not present sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Cobb v. State, 340 Ark. 240, 12 S.W.3d 195 (2000). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence supports the verdict. Id. In making this determination, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considers only that evidence supporting the verdict. Id. Substantial evidence is that evidence which is of sufficient force and character to compel a conclusion without resort to speculation or conjecture. Id. Circumstantial evidence cansupport a conviction, but the evidence must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Id. Whether circumstantial evidence excludes every other reasonable conclusion is a question for the jury to decide. Id.

Under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-3-201(a)(2) (Repl. 1997) and 5-10-101(a)(4) (Repl. 1997), premeditation and deliberation constitute the necessary mental state for the commission of attempted capital murder. Salley v. State, 303 Ark. 278, 796 S.W.2d 335 (1990). Premeditation and deliberation are rarely capable of proof by direct evidence but may be inferred from the circumstances of the case, such as the type and character of the weapon used, the manner in which the weapon was used, the nature, extent, and location of the wounds inflicted, and the conduct of the accused. Cobb v. State, supra. Premeditation need not exist for any particular length of time, but may be formed in an instant. Id.

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, showed that appellant and the victim were involved in an argument, in which appellant hit the victim with a shoe. Appellant then left and returned a short time later on her bike. After speaking with other witnesses for several minutes, appellant pulled a gun out of a pouch on her bike and shot Willie Hale in the groin area, stating that she had told him about "f***ing with" her. As Mr. Hale tried to reach toward appellant, she shot him again in the stomach. While getting on her bike to leave, appellant stated, "Now, go tell the police that." Thus, the State produced substantial evidence to show that appellant acted with premeditation and deliberation in shooting the victim. See Green v. State, 330 Ark. 458, 956 S.W.2d 849 (1997) (holding that substantial evidence supported finding of premeditation and deliberation as required for attempted capital murder conviction where officer was shot in head immediately after he announced his presence and entered residence for purpose of executing search warrant); Buchanan v. State, 315 Ark. 227, 866 S.W.2d 395 (1993) (finding sufficient evidence ofpremeditation and deliberation to support conviction for capital murder where the appellant was involved in an argument with the victim and then shot him five times when the victim started to approach the appellant); Salley v. State, supra (holding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to sustain conviction for attempted capital murder where defendant fired at point blank range at police officer who stopped and questioned him, fired two additional shots after officer took evasive action, and then discharged a fourth shot in direction of officer's partner during subsequent chase, although none of the shots hit either officer); Stout v. State, 263 Ark. 355, 565 S.W.2d 23 (1978) (finding sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support conviction for attempted capital murder where the defendant, who had been arrested for DWI, pulled out a gun and fired two shots at the police officer; although both shots missed the officer, the court noted that one of the shots would have gone into his stomach if not deflected by the officer's gun).

Because there was conflicting testimony between the State's witnesses and the defense witnesses about the circumstances of the shooting, appellant contends that the evidence does not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis other than that she acted with premeditation and deliberation. Appellant also argues that the State's witnesses were not credible. However, the credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury. Cobb v. State, supra. The jury may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and may choose to believe the State's account of the facts, rather than the defendant's. Id. The question of whether the evidence excludes every other reasonable hypothesis other than that the defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation is one for the jury. Id.; Stout v. State, supra. Moreover, in a sufficiency-of-the-evidence review, we consider only the evidence supporting the verdict. Cobb v. State, supra. We thus do not consider any exculpatory testimony by the defense witnesses in conducting this review. Given the State's evidence that appellant left to get her gunand then returned and shot the victim twice, in addition to the statements made by appellant during the shooting, the jury was not left to speculation and conjecture in determining that appellant acted with premeditation and deliberation in shooting the victim. Thus, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Hart and Bird, JJ., agree.