Webb v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No.
CACR08-1094
ROBERT EARL WEBB,
Opinion Delivered 8
April 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR07-4747]
V.
THE HONORABLE JOHN W.
LANGSTON, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
D. P. MARSHALL JR. , Judge
A Pulaski County jury convicted Robert Earl Webb of theft of property. He
was sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment and fined $15,000.00. On appeal, Webb
argues that, viewing the evidence supporting his conviction in the light most favorable
to the State, substantial evidence does not support the judgment. Navarro v. State, 371
Ark. 179, 186, 264 S.W.3d 530, 535 (2007). Webb specifically challenges the State’s
proof about his identification as the thief, arguing that the victim’s testimony was
insufficient to tie him to the crime. He also contends that the evidence did not show
that the stolen property was worth more than $2,500.00.
The State had to prove that Webb knowingly, and with the purpose of
depriving the owner of certain property, took or exercised unauthorized control over
the property or obtained the property by deception or threat. Ark. Code Ann. § 536-103(a)(1) & (2) (Supp. 2007). The facts presented at trial were these. Marsha
Vivirito, a Louisiana resident, was loading her SUV early one morning after staying the
night at a Little Rock Hampton Inn. A man approached her. He said “[g]ive me
your money or I will cut you,” and showed Vivirito a knife. Vivirito did not have her
purse with her, so the thief took her vehicle, a new 2005 Toyota Highlander. She had
purchased her Highlander earlier that year for $24,000.00, and the vehicle had
approximately 3,000 miles on it at the time of the theft. Vivirito’s SUV was full of
important papers, legal documents, and personal belongings—including family
photographs and many items of jewelry. Vivirito testified that two family rings stolen
with the SUV were worth at least $9,000.00.
The next day, Pine Bluff police found Webb in possession of some of Vivirito’s
jewelry. More than a year later, a Louisiana law-enforcement officer showed Vivirito
a six-person photo lineup. She “[i]mmediately” identified the person in photo
number one as the thief and said that she would “never forget his face.” The person
in photo number one was Webb. At trial, Vivirito testified that, at the time of the
confrontation at the hotel, she and her attacker “were close” and that she “made sure
that [she] looked him straight in the face.” Although it was still dark just before
sunrise that morning, Vivirito testified that the hotel parking lot was “well lit.” At
trial, Vivirito again identified Webb as her attacker.
-2-
It was up to the jury, not us, to determine Vivirito’s credibility and resolve any
conflicts in the testimony. Tryon v. State, 371 Ark. 25, 32, 263 S.W.3d 475, 481–82
(2007). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, substantial
evidence shows that Webb was the man who stole Ms. Vivirito’s property and that the
property’s value exceeded $2,500.00. Navarro, 371 Ark. at 186, 190, 264 S.W.3d at
535, 538; Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-103(a)(1) & (2). We therefore affirm his theft
conviction.
GRUBER and GLOVER, 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.
