APPEAL
FROM THE MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 45CR-17-102]
HONORABLE GORDON WEBB, JUDGE.
Potts
Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, for appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
MEREDITH B. SWITZER, Judge.
Appellant
Robert Cobb was convicted by a Marion County Circuit Court
jury of one count each of residential burglary, attempted
breaking or entering, criminal mischief in the first degree,
theft of a firearm, and theft of property, and two counts of
breaking or entering. Cobb was sentenced as a habitual
offender. The circuit court ordered that the convictions for
residential burglary, attempted breaking or entering, theft
of a firearm, and theft of property be served consecutively,
with the first-degree-criminal-mischief and the two
breaking-or-entering convictions to be served concurrently
with the other convictions, for a total of fifty-five
years' incarceration. On appeal, Cobb argues the circuit
court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict on
all seven counts. We affirm.
I.
Facts
At
trial, testimony established that on November 18, 2017,
William Wood discovered that Robert Barron's residence
and outbuildings in Summit, Arkansas, had been broken into.
Wood, a friend of Barron's, knew Barron was out of state
for an extended period, and he was checking on Barron's
property, which was marked with no trespassing signs. Wood
explained that Barron's driveway had a locked gate, so he
had entered the property using the power-line right-of-way.
Wood noticed some items strewn about the property, and he
knew that when he had been to the property less than a month
before to read the water meter, the property was in
"perfect" condition. Wood called the Marion County
Sheriff's Office to report the break-in.
The
officers who responded also had to access the property using
the power-line easement due to the lock on the gate across
the driveway, and they reported numerous items strewn up and
down the road, including bags and boxes of tools and a trash
can filled with tools located at the bottom of the power-line
easement. Doors on two sheds were open and the buildings had
been rummaged through, and the sliding glass door to
Barron's house had been broken. Officers observed that a
camper trailer on the property had pry marks on the door; it
appeared an attempt had been made to enter the camper, but
the door was locked. When Wood received permission from
Barron for the officers to enter the house, they discovered
the power had been shut off. Barron told them that the power
was on when he left. Officers described the house as
"completely destroyed"; every room had been
ransacked, items were gathered in piles throughout the house
as though someone was coming back to remove the remaining
items, televisions were missing, and the hinges and door of a
heavy-duty fireproof gun safe had been removed. Barron
informed the officers that he had guns in the safe; all the
guns were missing.
While
investigating the break-in, officers observed two males
walking down the road from the locked, gated driveway at the
front of the property. As the two men initially approached
the house they were walking normally, but then they were
described by officers as beginning to walk
"suspiciously" in a crouched, sneaking position the
closer they got to the house, and one man began walking to
the front of the residence while the other man headed toward
the rear of the residence. The men were later identified as
Cobb and Anthony Contreras. When officers told the two men to
freeze, Cobb began to run from the scene, but he eventually
obeyed orders to halt. When apprehended, Cobb had a gray
backpack and a ratchet in his hand. When asked why he was on
the property, Cobb stated they were going to Allen's
Grocery and this was a shortcut; however, one officer
testified Allen's Grocery was in the opposite direction,
and it was unnecessary for the men to cross Barron's
property to get to the grocery. Cobb then asked the officers
"what the f***" they were doing there and how did
they get there.
Officers
were able to obtain pictures taken by a game camera located
outside the residence. While unable to see the man's
face, the pictures showed a man wearing a tan shirt, pants, a
camouflage hat, and white tennis shoes and holding a laundry
basket full of items. One officer testified he saw Cobb
wearing a hat and shoes resembling the ones in the
game-camera pictures.
Robert
Barron testified that his property sits on thirty lots, which
are all wooded except the area around the house. He said his
driveway gate was locked when he went out of town, but
someone could go around the gate or climb it if they wanted
to do so. He explained that he had two game cameras outside;
one had been stolen and the other had not. Barron described
his house as more or less "demolished" and
"trashed" on the inside. The power had been turned
off; Barron believed the alarms scared the person who had
entered the house and turning off the power silenced the
alarms. Barron testified that two small safes containing
birth certificates, car titles, silver, gold, coins, and his
grandfather's gold watches were torn from the wall where
they had been bolted to the sheetrock, and they had been
removed from the premises. He said insurance paid him $10,
000 for the loss of his property and another $4, 000 for the
loss of his guns, but he estimated his total loss was around
$35, 000, and insurance did not cover the silver, gold, or
his tools. He said some of the items taken from his shop
building included generators, a power washer, and bicycles,
and he believed someone was coming back because his large air
compressor had been placed by the door. Barron testified that
the backpack and ratchet found on Cobb when he was
apprehended looked like his property. He explained that there
had also been an attempt to enter his thirty-two-foot camper
by prying the door, but it was locked; he estimated it would
cost at least $500 to replace the door, so he had simply
attempted to hammer the frame back to its original shape.
When
the State rested its case, Cobb moved for a directed verdict
on all counts, arguing there was no evidence he was the
person who entered Barron's property and committed the
offenses. He contended that he had found the items in his
possession when he was apprehended (the backpack and the
rachet) on the easement, and it was not a crime to pick up
misplaced or abandoned property. This motion was denied. Cobb
presented no witnesses. He renewed his motion for directed
verdict, which was again denied. The jury returned guilty
verdicts on all counts.
II.
Standard of Review
A
directed-verdict motion is a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence. Sanford v. State, 2019 Ark.App. 10,
567 S.W.3d 553. Our test for determining the sufficiency of
the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by
substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id.
Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a
conclusion one way ...