Page 202
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 203
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 204
APPEAL
FROM THE UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 70CR-17-27],
HONORABLE HAMILTON H SINGLETON, JUDGE
James
Law Firm, by: Michael Kiel Kaiser, Megan M. Wilson, and
William O. "Bill" James, Jr., Little Rock, for
appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Asst Atty
Gen., for appellee.
OPINION
RAYMOND
R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Page 205
Robert
Jamar Fields was convicted by a Union County Circuit Court
jury of one count of aggravated robbery, three counts of
aggravated assault with two child enhancements, one count of
terroristic act, and one count of first-degree battery with a
child enhancement. He was sentenced to consecutive sentences
totaling fifty-four years imprisonment in the Arkansas
Department of Correction.
On
appeal, Fields argues the following five points: (1) the
circuit court clearly erred in denying his motion in limine
to exclude the pretrial identification of him made by the
victim, Jennifer New; (2) the circuit courts denial of his
Batson challenge was against the preponderance of
the evidence; (3) the circuit court failed to control the
prosecutors closing argument during sentencing,
"allowing him to misstate the law regarding parole
eligibility to the jury"; (4) the circuit court failed
to exercise discretion in sentencing him to consecutive terms
of imprisonment; and (5) the circuit court abused its
discretion in denying his petition for writ of error coram
nobis. We affirm.
On
July 25, 2017, one day before trial, Fields filed a motion in
limine to exclude victim Jennifer News pretrial photo
identification of him as the person who had shot her. Before
trial, the circuit court conducted a brief hearing on the
motion. The circuit court denied the motion, ruling that the
proffered evidence was hearsay and that the objections went
to News credibility. Fields argues that the circuit court
clearly erred in denying his motion in limine, but his
argument is not preserved for appeal. Issues raised for the
first time on appeal, even constitutional ones, will not be
considered because the circuit court never had an opportunity
to rule on them. E.g., London v. State, 354
Ark. 313, 320, 125 S.W.3d 813, 817 (2003).
News
identification of Fields from the photo she saw on the
internet and subsequently verified for police is not
preserved for appellate review because Fields did not object
to News in-court identification of him based on the alleged
taint from the photo identification. See, e.g.,
Jackson v. State, 318 Ark. 39, 41, 883 S.W.2d 466,
468 (1994); Goins v. State, 318 Ark. 689, 699-700,
890 S.W.2d 602, 607 (1995).
Fieldss
motion in limine did not ask for exclusion of any prospective
in-court identification. At trial, New first identified
Fields in the courtroom based on having seen him during
commission of the crimes, without mentioning the online mug
shot or the two photos shown to her by police when she
contacted them after having seen his photo online. New
testified at a later point in trial about seeing Fieldss
photo on the internet and also identifying it from photos
shown to her by police. Fieldss only objection to the
in-court identification was that the prosecutor
"need[ed] to lay more groundwork"— he did not
relate his ...