Allen v. State
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | MIKE MURPHY, Judge |
| Citation | Allen v. State, 2022 Ark.App. 110, 640 S.W.3d 446 (Ark. App. 2022) |
| Decision Date | 02 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | CR-21-367 |
| Parties | Joseph ALLEN, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
Ogles Law Firm, P.A., by: John Ogles, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Joseph Allen was found guilty by a Sebastian County jury of theft by receiving and possession of drug paraphernalia. He now appeals. On appeal, Allen argues that substantial evidence does not support the charges. We affirm.
On February 26, 2020, Arkansas State Police Trooper Rafael Guerra pulled behind the car appellant Joseph Allen was driving, checked its tags, and discovered it had been reported stolen. Guerra verified with dispatch it was stolen, called for backup, and then initiated a traffic stop. He told Allen he was being arrested for theft by receiving; Allen said he was borrowing the car from a friend who lived down the street. During the search of the car, officers found under the driver's seat a loaded 9mm semiautomatic gun and almost two pounds of meth. The meth was divided between two plastic bags that were inside a donut bag next to the gun. Allen was taken to jail.
Allen made two calls from jail. One was to his girlfriend, Vanessa Davidson, and the other was to his mother. The State introduced a transcript of the jail calls, and they were played to the jury. The pertinent excerpts follow. First, while talking to Davidson, the following conversation took place:
Next, while speaking to his mother, the following conversation took place:
Allen was charged with four counts: (1) trafficking methamphetamine; (2) simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms; (3) theft by receiving; and (4) possession of drug paraphernalia. A jury convicted Allen of theft by receiving and possession of drug paraphernalia, but a mistrial was granted on the charges of trafficking methamphetamine and simultaneous possession because the jury could not reach a verdict. Allen was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for theft by receiving and six years’ imprisonment for possession of drug paraphernalia, to be served consecutively. On appeal, Allen claims that there is not substantial evidence to support either of his convictions.
The denial of a directed-verdict motion is treated on appeal as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Price v. State , 2019 Ark. 323, at 4, 588 S.W.3d 1, 4. When assessing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. Id. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, and we only consider the evidence that supports the verdict. Kinsey v. State , 2016 Ark. 393, at 5, 503 S.W.3d 772, 775. Evidence is substantial when it is leads the fact-finder to a conclusion without speculation or conjecture. Hinton v. State , 2015 Ark. 479, at 2, 477 S.W.3d 517, 520. Circumstantial evidence may support the conviction, but it must be inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Price , 2019 Ark. 323, at 6, 588 S.W.3d at 5. Whether the evidence excludes all other reasonable hypotheses that show innocence is a decision for the jury. Id. The jury is responsible for determining witness credibility and resolving any inconsistencies in the evidence. Id.
A person commits theft by receiving when he or she receives, retains, or disposes of stolen property of another person, either knowing or having good reason to believe the property was stolen. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(a) (Repl. 2013). "Receiving" means acquiring possession, control, or title or lending on the security of the property. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(b). A presumption that a person knows or believes property was stolen arises when there is unexplained...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Mitchell v. State
...a controlled substance. Constructive possession is sufficient to establish possession for the purpose of this statute. Allen v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 110, 640 S.W.3d 446; Matlock v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 65, 454 S.W.3d 776. To prove constructive possession, the State must establish that the......
-
Hare v. State
...WL 1482211, and jurors can draw upon their common knowledge and experience to infer intent from the circumstances. Allen v. State , 2022 Ark. App. 110, 640 S.W.3d 446. Moreover, although Hare cites evidence that he was under the influence of hallucinogenic mushrooms, it is well established ......
-
Jarrett v. State
...exists to support it, meaning the evidence is forceful enough to compel a conclusion beyond suspicion or conjecture. Allen v. State, 2022 Ark.App. 110, 640 S.W.3d 446. Jarrett was tried to the bench, so the judge was determiner of fact and credibility. Holmes v. State, 2019 Ark.App. 384, 58......
-
Railey v. State
...exists to support it, meaning the evidence is forceful enough to compel a conclusion beyond suspicion or conjecture. Allen v. State , 2022 Ark. App. 110, 640 S.W.3d 446. The State is not required to prove actual possession of contraband but may instead prove that the accused was in construc......