James E. Williams v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DIVISION III

JAMES E. WILLIAMS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 04-413

JANUARY 5, 2005

APPEAL FROM THE UNION

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR2002-716]

HONORABLE HAMILTON HOBBS

SINGLETON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

John B. Robbins, Judge

Appellant James Edward Williams was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, and was sentenced to sixty years in prison. His sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence to identify him as the perpetrator of the crime. We affirm.

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). Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-103(a)(1) (Repl. 1997), a person commits aggravated robbery if he commits robbery as defined in § 5-12-102, and he is armed with a deadly weapon or represents by word or conduct that he is so armed.

A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Arnet v. State, 353 Ark. 165, 114 S.W.3d 167 (2003). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. Jenkins v. State, 348 Ark. 686, 75 S.W.3d 180 (2002). The evidence to support a conviction, whether direct or circumstantial, must be of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable and material certainty and precision, compel a conclusion one way or the other. Smith v. State, 308 Ark. 390, 824 S.W.2d 838 (1992). We consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. It is for the jury to resolve inconsistencies in testimony, and we will not disturb their credibility assessment. Ellis v. State, 279 Ark. 430, 652 S.W.2d 35 (1983).

The victim in this case was Becky Goodwin. She testified that she works for Associates Insurance in El Dorado, and that she opened the office at 8:00 a.m. on September 30, 2002. She stated that shortly thereafter she was alone in the office when Mr. Williams came in and asked if they were open for business. Ms. Goodwin replied in the affirmative, and Mr. Williams exited the office. Ms. Goodwin thought that he probably returned to his car to get information related to his insurance needs.

Ms. Goodwin testified that when Mr. Williams returned, he pointed a revolver at her head and demanded money. At first Ms. Goodwin refused to give him any money, but Mr. Williams came behind the counter with her and she eventually complied. Ms. Goodwin stated that she put some money in a bag and was also forced to give Mr. Williams her wedding rings. Mr. Williams then forced Ms. Goodwin to remove her clothes, placed her in a closet, and told her to stay there for five minutes before leaving the premises. After Mr. Williams left, Ms. Goodwin emerged from the closet and called her boss, and the police arrived soon thereafter.

Ms. Goodwin testified that she had an opportunity to make good visual contact with Mr. Williams's face before he demanded that she not look at him. Ms. Goodwin stated it was "like I had taken a photograph." As to her identification of Mr. Williams as the culprit, Ms. Goodwin stated, "I do not have any question about my identification of that person," and there was "no question in my mind, no doubt whatsoever."

Edrick Ellis was identified by Ms. Goodwin as a person who was watching the robbery through the window of the business as the robbery occurred. Mr. Ellis testified for the defense, and acknowledged being at the scene during the robbery. He could not positively identify who robbed Ms. Goodwin, but maintained that it was not Mr. Williams. Mr. Ellis explained that he was at home when a stranger offered him money and cocaine in exchange for a ride. According to Mr. Ellis, the stranger drove his car to Associates Insurance and committed the crime while he waited in the car doing cocaine. During the robbery he walked to the window of the business to see what was taking so long. Mr. Ellis admitted that upon being arrested in connection with the offense he gave a statement to the police implicating Mr. Williams. However, he stated that he was on drugs at the time, and that when the police showed him a photograph Mr. Williams he told them, "If you [are] going to let me out, then that's him."

Officer Jamie Morrow testified on rebuttal. He stated that Mr. Ellis was the first suspect, and that he conducted an interview. Officer Morrow stated that Mr. Ellis did not appear to be under the influence of drugs, and that no promises were made in exchange for his statements. Officer Morrow indicated that Mr. Ellis identified Mr. Williams as the man who committed the robbery, and that Mr. Ellis provided details of the events surrounding the crime.

For reversal of his conviction, Mr. Williams argues that there was insufficient evidence that he was the person who committed the aggravated robbery. Mr. Williams asserts that the only person to identify him as the perpetrator was Ms. Goodwin, and that she observed him for only a few seconds. Mr. Williams submits that the State offered no other evidence to corroborate Ms. Goodwin's testimony, and that thus the State failed to meet its burden of proof.

Mr. Williams's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit. Contrary to his argument, our supreme court has held that one eyewitness's testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and her testimony is not clearly unbelievable simply because it is uncorroborated or because it has been impeached. See Garner v. State, 355 Ark. 82, 131 S.W.3d 734 (2003). In this case, Ms. Goodwin positively identified Mr. Williams as the man who committed the aggravated robbery, and her testimony alone is sufficient to sustain the conviction. Moreover, there was additional evidence of Mr. Williams's guilt in that Mr. Ellis identified him as the culprit when being questioned by the police. Because there was substantial identification evidence presented at trial, we affirm Mr. Williams's conviction.

Affirmed.

Gladwin and Vaught, JJ., agree.