Gary Leshawn Haywood v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

October 24, 2002

GARY LESHAWN HAYWOOD

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 02-120

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GARLAND COUNTY, NO. CR-2001-5-II, HONORABLE EDWARD T. SMITHERMAN, JR., JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant pled guilty to attempted first-degree murder and first-degree murder and was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment and life imprisonment, respectively. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1)(2002), appellant's counsel has filed a brief stating that the appeal has no merit. Appellant has raised points for reversal pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(2), alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective, that the trial court was not aware of his psychiatric problems, and that he was sentenced outside the sentencing grid. We will address the adverse rulings raised in the Anders brief; however, appellant's points for reversal are procedurally barred, and we do not consider them.

Trial counsel addresses four adverse rulings in his brief, the first of which was the trial court's refusal to suppress appellant's in-custody statements. Prior to trial, a hearing was held to determine the admissibility of appellant's statements to law enforcement. According to Officer Paul Norris of the Hot Springs Police Department, he processed appellant on a warrant for capital murder, read him his rights from a form, and took statements. Norris testified that appellant indicated thathe understood his rights and initialed the form. Moreover, Norris testified regarding appellant's two written statements and stated that there were no promises made and no use of force or threats. Custodial statements are presumed to be involuntary, and the burden is on the state to prove that the statements were properly obtained and freely and intelligently given, without fear or favor. Sanders v. State, 305 Ark. 112, 805 S.W.2d 953 (1991). As trial counsel correctly notes, appellant was advised of his rights and made a waiver of those rights. Moreover, there was no evidence that appellant's statements were the result of threats or promises. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's ruling that the statements were admissible.

The second adverse ruling was that the trial court granted a challenge for cause regarding a potential juror. During voir dire, the prosecutor asked potential jurors if anyone would have "misgivings" about handing down a life sentence to a defendant for murder simply because that defendant was of a younger age. One juror answered affirmatively. When questioned further, the juror stated that she would rule out entirely the possibility of giving a life sentence based upon appellant's age alone. Following voir dire, the State sought to challenge the juror for cause based upon the previous response, and the trial court granted the challenge.

In Allen v. State, 281 Ark. 1, 660 S.W.2d 922 (1983), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 109 (1985), this court upheld the trial court's ruling to excuse for cause a prospective juror who stated that she could consider life imprisonment but would not return a verdict of life. The question of a juror's qualifications lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Hardcastle v. State, 25 Ark. App. 157, 755 S.W.2d 228 (1988); Miller v. State, 8 Ark. App. 165, 649 S.W.2d 407 (1983). Accordingly, there was no error in the trial court's decision to excuse this juror.

The third adverse ruling dealt with an objection to photographs as cumulative. The photographs at issue were of the body of the victim in a car taken from different angles. Accordingto the prosecutor, it was important for the jury to see the victim's body, where the passenger was sitting next to him in the car, and where appellant would have been sitting behind the passenger. The prosecutor argued that the photographs showed different angles for different reasons and were not excessively graphic. The photographs were used to explain the testimony of Dr. Stephen Erickson, an associate medical examiner, that the bullets that struck the victim would cause instant incapacitation and unconsciousness. In addition, the photographs showed that the victim did not have a weapon in his hand. The trial court agreed with the State and overruled appellant's objection that the photographs were cumulative. Because the photographs were used to aid the jury in understanding testimony, they were admissible. See Walker v. State, 277 Ark. 137, 639 S.W.2d 742 (1982). Accordingly, no reversable error occurred.

The fourth adverse ruling involved a relevancy objection by the State during the cross-examination of a witness regarding where the victim obtained his drugs. The objection was sustained by the trial court. According to Ark. R. Evid. 401, " `Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Where the victim obtained his drugs does not fall into this category of evidence; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

As for appellant's points for reversal, we will not consider arguments "where the appellant presents no citation to authority, makes no convincing argument in support of his allegation of error, and it is not apparent without further research that the argument is well-taken." McFarland v. State, 337 Ark. 386, 398, 989 S.W.2d 899, 905-06 (1999). Appellant's points for reversal consist of conclusory allegations with no factual substantiation nor citation to authority. Moreover, it is unclear which specific rulings or procedures form the basis of his complaint. Accordingly, weaffirm.

Affirmed.