Thomas J. Bass v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, CHIEF JUDGE  DIVISION III  CACR07­184  November 28, 2007  THOMAS J. BASS  APPELLANT  APPEAL  FROM  DREW  COUNTY  CIRCUIT COURT  [NO. CR­2006­15­1]  V. HON. SAM POPE,  JUDGE  STATE OF ARKANSAS  AFFIRMED  APPELLEE  Appellant Thomas J. Bass was convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery.  On  appeal,  he  concedes  that  he  committed  the  robberies,  but  argues  that  the  evidence  is  insufficient to show that they were aggravated because he made no threats and merely kept  one hand in his coat pocket.  We affirm.  A person commits the offense of aggravated robbery if he commits robbery as defined  in Ark. Code Ann. § 5­12­102 and he is armed with a deadly weapon or represents by word  or conduct that he is so armed.  Ark. Code Ann. § 5­12­103(a)(1) and (2) (Repl. 2006).  The  test for determining sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence, direct or  circumstantial, supports the verdict.  Hall v. State, 361 Ark. 379, 206 S.W.3d 830 (2005).  Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient certainty and precision to compel a conclusion one  way  or  another  and  pass  beyond  mere  suspicion  or  conjecture.  Id.  On  appeal,  we  review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence  that supports the verdict. Id.  Here, there was substantial evidence that appellant pointed his jacket at the victims  with his hand in his pocket and demanded that they open their cash registers.  All three of  the  clerks  thought  that  appellant  had  a  gun.    Pointing  a  jacket  at  a  clerk  in  a  manner  insinuating that one has a gun is a sufficient representation that a person is armed under the  aggravated robbery statute when this conduct causes the victim to reasonably believe that the  person is armed.  Edwards v. State, 360 Ark. 413, 201 S.W.3d 909 (2005).  Affirmed.  GRIFFEN  and MARSHALL, JJ., agree. ­2­  CACR07­184 

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.