David D. Ramey v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
WENDELL L. GRIFFEN, JUDGE
DIVISION II
CACR06-40
September 6, 2006
DAVID D. RAMEY
APPELLANT
AN APPEAL FROM UNION
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR04-724-1]
V.
HON. HAMILTON H. SINGLETON,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
On September 21, 2005, a Union County jury found David Ramey guilty of possession
of drug paraphernalia and driving while intoxicated, first offense.1 Appellant appeals from
the conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence. Because appellant failed to adequately preserve his sufficiency challenge, we
affirm.
According to the testimony adduced at trial, Kent Holmes, a part-time deputy for the
Union County Sheriff’s Office, was driving home at 3:00 a.m. on August 14, 2004, when he
saw a Honda CRV traveling southbound on Arkansas Highway 7 North. The vehicle was
traveling erratically, crossing the fog line and the other lane of traffic. Because he was
driving in his personal vehicle, Officer Holmes contacted the Union County Sheriff’s Office.
1
Appellant was also charged with possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) with
intent to deliver, but he was found not guilty. Accordingly, testimony regarding that
charge is not recounted here.
Minutes later, Karl Nichols of the El Dorado Police Department headed to the area and
started following the Honda CRV.
The driver of the automobile continued to drive
erratically. Concerned about the driver’s ability to maintain his automobile, Officer Nichols
initiated a traffic stop.
As Officer Nichols approached the vehicle, he smelled the odor of alcohol. Appellant
was the driver of the automobile. Officer Nichols asked appellant for his driver’s license,
insurance, and registration. He then asked appellant to step out of the vehicle and was
immediately concerned when appellant stepped out, took a couple of steps back, and leaned
against the vehicle for balance. Officer Nichols attempted to perform a field sobriety test and
afterward arrested appellant for suspicion of DWI. After placing appellant in his vehicle,
Officer Nichols searched appellant’s vehicle and found a set of digital scales and baggies
inside the console. Officer Nichols testified that in his experience, digital scales were used
to measure narcotics.2 In this case, the scales had “white” on them. Appellant was taken to
the Union County Sheriff’s Office, where he took a Breathalyzer test and blew a 0.205 on
the machine.
At the close of the State’s case, appellant moved for directed verdict. Regarding the
charge for possession of drug paraphernalia, appellant argued “that there’s no substantial
evidence to show that the Defendant possessed drug paraphernalia.” The court denied
appellant’s motion. The jury later found appellant guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia
and driving while intoxicated, first offense. Appellant was sentenced to ten years in the
Arkansas Department of Correction and was fined a total of $2000.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict
2
Randy Connelly of the El Dorado Police Department testified pertaining to the chain
of custody of the State’s exhibits. His testimony is irrelevant for the purposes of this
appeal except to the extent that he also testified that the digital scales found in appellant’s
automobile were used in connection with narcotics.
2
on the possession charge. He contends that the State presented insufficient evidence that he
possessed drug paraphernalia or knew that the scales and baggies found in his car were
contraband. The State argues that appellant’s argument is not preserved for appellate review.
We agree.
Rule 33.1(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a directedverdict motion specifically state how the State’s evidence is insufficient. See also Nelson v.
State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Feb 16, 2006). The failure of a defendant to challenge
the sufficiency of the evidence in this manner constitutes a waiver of any question pertaining
to the sufficiency of the evidence. Id.
At trial, appellant merely argued “that there’s no substantial evidence to show that the
Defendant possessed drug paraphernalia.” This argument is not specific, as we are unable
to determine whether appellant challenged at trial the State’s evidence that he possessed the
items found in his automobile or that the items in his automobile were drug paraphernalia.
Appellant makes both arguments on appeal; however, because they were not made at trial
below, we are precluded from considering them on appeal. See id.
Affirmed.
R OBBINS and C RABTREE, JJ., agree.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
