Gormley v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 719
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
CACR10-109
No.
Opinion Delivered
TOBIAS GORMLEY
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
October 27, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-09-151-4]
HONORABLE MARCIA R.
HEARNSBERGER, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Tobias Gormley was found guilty by a Garland County jury of theft by
receiving property valued in excess of $2,500, a Class B felony. He was sentenced as a habitual
offender to forty years’ imprisonment. Gormley argues on appeal that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
Gormley’s jury trial took place on October 1, 2009. At the trial, Rick Green testified
that he filed a police report on February 14, 2008, after discovering that his home had been
burglarized and that a laptop and a large jewelry box were missing. Green stated that, among
other items, he kept his twelve-diamond custom-made ring in the stolen jewelry box.1
According to Green, he hardly wore the ring. The jewelry box was recovered; however, all
The ring was made from a ring left to Green by his grandmother, which Green had
melted down and the stones reset into a square band that matched Green’s Rolex watch.
1
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 719
of the jewelry was missing out of it. Green stated that he would check the local pawn shops
two to three times a week looking for the stolen items. Green testified that he went into Pak
Plaza Pawn Shop on October 18, 2008, and saw his ring on display. He left the pawn shop,
contacted the police, and the ring was subsequently taken as evidence. Green was shown a
picture of the ring found at Pak Plaza at trial and he positively identified it as his stolen ring.
Green also identified a picture of him wearing the ring with his son. Green stated that he did
not know Gormley.
On cross-examination, Green stated that he later learned that the pawn shop was trying
to sell his ring for $1,200. He testified that even though there was no engraving inside the
band of his ring, the ring was very unique.
Charles Swim testified that he worked at Pak Plaza Pawn Shop where Green’s ring was
found. Swim stated that the ring was unusual to him because it was square. Swim said that the
ring was pawned on June 27, 2008, by Gormley for $400. According to Swim, the ring was
placed for sale when Gormley did not come and reclaim it at the end of the loan term. Swim
testified that the $1,200 sale price was the price his boss “scrapped it out for.”
On cross-examination, Swim stated that in June 2008, $1,200 was the price for which
Pak Plaza was willing to relinquish the ring.
Detective Frank Abbott of the Hot Springs Police Department testified that he was
assigned to investigate the burglary at Green’s residence. He stated that the jewelry box was
located, the day after the burglary, in a trash can. Detective Abbott said that the next time he
received any leads concerning the burglary was when Green contacted him on October 18,
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 719
2008, saying that he had located his ring. Detective Abbott testified that he went to Pak Plaza
and looked at the ring, which was identical to the description given by Green. According to
Det. Abbott, after Green presented him with a picture proving that the ring belonged to him,
the ring was removed from the pawn shop and placed in the property room at the police
department. Detective Abbott said that he also obtained a copy of the pawn ticket, which
contained Gormley’s name, and placed it into evidence. An arrest warrant was issued for
Gormley, and he was subsequently arrested.
Carol Wootton, an independent jewelry appraiser, testified that she appraised the ring
the day before trial and determined that the ring had a value of $3,884 in 2008.
Gormley moved for a directed verdict at the end of the State’s case, arguing that the
State failed to show that he knew or should have known under the circumstances that the ring
was stolen. The motion was denied.
Swim was re-called following the State’s case, and he testified that Gormley had also
pawned the ring on May 5, 2008. On cross-examination by the State, Swim said that
Gormley originally pawned the ring in May for $150. According to Swim, Gormley
reclaimed the ring during the early part of June and re-pawned it on June 27, 2008, for an
increased amount. Gormley failed to reclaim the ring after the second pawn.
Gormley testified that he did pawn the ring on two separate occasions because he
needed money. According to Gormley, he purchased the ring in mid-March from Clint
Foster for $750. Gormley said that he had purchased furniture from Foster in the past, and
-3-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 719
that he had no idea that the ring was stolen. Gormley stated that he saw Foster wearing the
ring about a month before he bought it from him.
On cross-examination, Gormley stated that he has known Foster for approximately
seven years and “kinda” knew that Foster was a convicted felon. Gormley testified that his
cousin, Dennis Gormley, brought Foster to his house to see if he wanted to buy the ring.
According to Gormley, his cousin is also a convicted felon. Gormley said that he honestly
thought the ring was worth $1,500, and that he thought he was getting it for a deal for $750.
Gormley continued, “I buy this ring, that ends up stolen, from a convicted felon. I’m a
convicted felon. We were brought together by my convicted felon cousin.” However, he
maintained that he did not know that the ring was stolen.
Gormley renewed his directed-verdict motion at the conclusion of the evidence. The
motion was denied. Gormley was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to forty years in
the Arkansas Department of Correction. This appeal followed.
Gormley argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict.
We treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.2 A
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence asserts that the verdict was not supported by
substantial evidence.3 In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court
Strong v. State, 372 Ark. 404, 277 S.W.3d 159 (2008).
2
Sales v. State, 374 Ark. 222, 289 S.W.3d 423 (2008).
3
-4-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 719
determines whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial.4
Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other
beyond suspicion or conjecture.5 This court views the evidence in the light most favorable
to the verdict, and only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered.6
A person commits the offense of theft by receiving if he or she receives, retains, or
disposes of stolen property of another person knowing that the property was stolen or having
good reason to believe the property was stolen.7 The acquisition by the person of property
for a consideration known to be far below the property’s reasonable value gives rise to a
presumption that the person knows or believes the property is stolen.8
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence
supports Gormley’s conviction. Gormley purchased a ring valued at over $3,000 from a
known felon for $750. By his own testimony, Gormley valued the ring to be worth at least
$1,500. Despite Gormley’s testimony, the evidence gave rise to the presumption that he knew
or should have known that the ring was stolen. Gormley’s conviction shows that he was
unable to overcome this presumption. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Reese v. State, 371 Ark. 1, 262 S.W.3d 604 (2007).
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(a) (Repl. 2006).
7
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(c) (Repl. 2006).
8
-5-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 719
ABRAMSON and HENRY, JJ., agree.
-6-
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.
