GARY ROBINSON, JR. APPELLANT
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 23CR-15-276]
HONORABLE CHARLES E. CLAWSON, JR., JUDGE
Law Firm, by: Michael Kiel Kaiser and William O.
"Bill" James, Jr., for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson,
Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
J. GLADWIN, JUDGE
Gary Robinson, Jr., appeals his conviction by a Faulkner
County jury on charges of simultaneous possession of drugs
and a firearm, a Class Y felony, in violation of Arkansas
Code Annotated section 5-74-106 (Supp. 2013), and failure to
appear, a Class C felony, in violation of Arkansas Code
Annotated section 5-54-120 (Supp. 2013). He challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions for
simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms and failure to
appear. We affirm.
April 16, 2015, appellant was pulled over by Officer Richard
Shumate of the Conway Police Department for traffic
violations-failure to stop at an intersection and the trunk
standing open so that the license plate could not be read-at
which time appellant was found to have a suspended
driver's license. Officer Shumate asked appellant to exit
the vehicle, placed him into custody, handcuffed him, and
performed a search of appellant's person incident to
the search, Officer Shumate found a plastic bag that
contained eleven smaller bags of methamphetamine in a pouch
sewn into appellant's underwear. During the subsequent
search of the car appellant was driving, Officer Shumate
discovered a semiautomatic pistol between the center console
and the driver's seat. Officer Shumate indicated that if
a person was in the driver's seat of the vehicle looking
down, the person would be able to see the firearm. The owner
of the car was later found to be a woman named Felicia
State filed charges of simultaneous possession of drugs and a
firearm, a Class Y felony; and possession of a controlled
substance with purpose to deliver methamphetamine, a Class B
felony, against appellant on April 17, 2015. Appellant's
case was set for a jury trial on July 28, 2016, but it was
canceled when appellant did not arrive by the specified time
of 9:00 a.m. On November 8, 2016, the State amended the
felony information to add one count of failure to appear, a
Class C felony.
jury trial was held on December 1, 2016. At the close of the
State's case, and again at the close of all the evidence,
appellant's counsel moved for a directed verdict on the
simultaneous-possession and failure-to-appear charges, which
the trial court denied. The jury found appellant guilty of
all three charges and sentenced him to eighty years for
simultaneous possession; forty years for possession with
purpose to deliver; and seven years for failure to appear, to
run concurrently. The trial court entered the sentencing
order on December 2, 2016, and appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal on December 28, 2016.
Standard of Review
appeal, a motion for directed verdict is treated as a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Brooks v.
State, 2016 Ark. 305, 498 S.W.3d 292. Appellate courts
will affirm the conviction if there is substantial evidence
to support it. Id. Substantial evidence is that
which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with
reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the
other, without mere speculation or conjecture. See
Sylvester v. State, 2016 Ark. 136, 489 S.W.3d 146. The
evidence may be either direct or circumstantial; however,
circumstantial evidence must be consistent with the
defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other
reasonable conclusion. King v. State, 100 Ark.App.
208, 266 S.W.3d 205 (2007).
reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to
the State and considers only the evidence that supports the
verdict. Beaver v. State, 2014 Ark.App. 188. It is
the jury's role as fact-finder to resolve questions of
conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence, and the jury
is free to choose to believe the State's account of the
facts rather than the defendant's. Hill v.
State, 2015 Ark.App. 700, 478 S.W.3d 225. When doing so,
the jury is not required to abandon common sense, and it is
entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.
Jeffersonv. State, 2017 ...