Frank Chatman v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE
DIVISION IV
CACR06-225
October 11, 2006
FRANK CHATMAN
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR2005-3758]
HON. TIMOTHY DAVIS FOX,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
Appellant Frank Chatman was charged with residential burglary. Following a bench
trial, he was found guilty of criminal attempt to commit residential burglary. The circuit court
sentenced him as a habitual offender to twenty years’ imprisonment. Chatman argues on
appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because there was
insufficient evidence to support his conviction.1 We affirm.
1
In his directed-verdict motion, Chatman stated that the State failed to offer “any
proof that he attempted to enter or remain into (sic) this house other than they found his
fingerprint on a piece of glass lying on the ground outside of this woman’s window, and
that’s all that they’ve got to show that he was there.” Although he did not use the magic
words “substantial step,” his statement adequately outlined the portion of the State’s case
that he believed to be deficient. Therefore, we are satisfied that the issue is preserved for
our review.
In this case, the State filed a felony information charging that Chatman committed the
offense of residential burglary. He stood bench trial in Pulaski County. At trial, the State
presented testimony from Patricia Ross, the owner of the home that was burglarized. Ross
testified that at 8:02 a.m., while out shopping, she was notified by ADT Security that her
home’s burglar alarm had been activated. Upon returning home, she observed muddy
footprints on her front door and noticed that the front door was “kind of ajar.” She opined
that someone had tried to break in because “the boarding around the door casing was loose.”
Also, she testified that her bedroom window screen was torn off and the window was broken.
Ross testified that items she had seen that morning in her bedroom—such as jewelry
and a DVD player—were missing. She also noticed that items were strewn in a manner
inconsistent with how she had left them. Finally, she testified that a knob from her headboard
had been broken off and was laying in front of the shattered window.
All of the glass had been removed from the window casing of the broken bedroom
window. Chatman’s fingerprints were found on a piece of the broken glass, located outside
of the bedroom. According to Officer Roger Swope of the Little Rock Police Department,
this type of removal is common because it allows for entry into the structure without being
cut by the remaining pieces of glass. Ross also testified that she neither gave Chatman
permission to enter her residence nor gave him permission to be on any part of her property.
Chatman argues that this evidence only shows “that at some point in time [he] touched the
2
glass that was once a window.” He claims that such proof would, at most, “constitute
criminal trespass.”
On appeal, a directed-verdict motion is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence. Bangs v. State, 338 Ark. 515, 998 S.W.2d 738 (1999). The test for determining the
sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct
or circumstantial. Id. Sufficient evidence is evidence of sufficient certainty to compel a
conclusion and pass beyond mere suspicion or conjecture. Jones v. State, 349 Ark. 331, 78
S.W.3d 104 (2002). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict.
Id.
A person commits residential burglary if he enters or remains unlawfully in a
residential, occupiable structure of another person with the purpose of committing therein
any offense punishable by imprisonment. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-201(a)(1) (Repl. 1997). The
statute provides that a person attempts to commit an offense if he purposely engages in
conduct that constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate in the
commission of an offense, whether or not the attendant circumstances are as he believes them
to be. Id. To constitute a substantial step, conduct must be strongly corroborative of a
person’s criminal purpose. Id. § 5-3-201(c). Intent may be established by circumstantial
evidence because it can seldom be proved by direct evidence and must be inferred from facts
and circumstances. Smith v. State, 346 Ark. 48, 55 S.W.3d 251 (2001).
3
In support of his argument for reversal, Chatman relies on our holding in Holloway
v. State, 11 Ark. App. 69, 666 S.W.2d 410 (1984). In Holloway, the victim returned home
to find a window broken out and her television missing. Id. The only evidence presented
against Holloway was his latent fingerprints found on a piece of broken glass on the ground
outside of the victim’s home. Id. We determined that such evidence was insufficient to
support Holloway’s conviction for residential burglary. Id.
However, here the circuit court found Chatman guilty of criminal attempt to commit
residential burglary. Thus, we must only consider whether the State presented substantial
evidence of conduct by Chatman constituting a substantial step intended to culminate in
residential burglary. First, we note that Chatman did not have permission to be at the Ross
home, yet his fingerprints prove that he was there. Second, his fingerprints were found on a
broken window that was completely removed from its frame. Third, the broken window was
located on the side of the house, which is an unnatural point-of-entry into the home. Further,
the evidence showed that there were muddy footprints on the door, that the door frame had
been tampered with, that the fingerprints were visible to the naked eye (indicating freshness),
and that all of these things occurred in an early-morning time frame. We are satisfied that this
evidence establishes that Chatman’s conduct was strongly corroborative of his criminal
purpose—attempted residential burglary.
Affirmed.
G RIFFEN and R OAF, JJ., agree.
4
5
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.