Baker v. State
| Decision Date | 10 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-20-314,CR-20-314 |
| Parties | Rodney L. BAKER, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Tapp Law Firm, P.A., Hot Springs, by: Tylar C.M. Tapp III, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
A Benton County jury convicted appellant Rodney Baker of one count of aggravated residential burglary and one count of first-degree battery. He was sentenced to a total of eighteen years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal, Baker challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions; in addition, he argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial and in denying his motion for continuance after the mistrial was denied. We find no error and affirm.
In June 2017, Kevin Luper was severely beaten and injured. Baker was arrested, charged, and convicted in relation to this beating and injury. We find it helpful to explain the relationships among the individuals involved in the case and the facts that led to the battery.
Kevin, the victim, was dating Baker's niece, Dreama Helvey. Kevin lived in an apartment over his truck-repair shop, and Dreama occasionally would spend the night with Kevin. She did so on the night before the beating. On the day of the beating, Kevin and Dreama were at Kevin's place and were joined by Diane Arnold, Dreama's mother. Kevin had been drinking and was intoxicated. Dreama left Kevin's place for a while, leaving Kevin and Diane alone. When Dreama returned, Diane was "really upset" and accused Kevin of sexually assaulting her.
After leaving Kevin's place, Diane drove to an E-Z Mart in Lowell where she called her sister, Karen "Sue" Baker, the wife of appellant Baker. On the phone, Diane was extremely upset and "screaming and yelling." At Sue's request, Baker and a friend drove to the E-Z Mart, picked up Diane, and took her back to Baker's house. At Baker's home, Diane reported that Kevin had "stuck his tongue down her throat and reached up her shorts." Baker then angrily called Dreama to confront her about what had happened. Dreama insisted that Kevin was drunk and had just "gotten handsy" with Diane. About half an hour later, however, Baker texted Dreama the following message: "So you didn't tell the whole story did you tell that mother fucker come on out I got something for him."1
Meanwhile, Dreama's brother, Mitchell Arnold, became aware of the allegations Diane had made against Kevin. Mitchell called Matthew "Ryder" Vansickle and Noah Craig and told them that Kevin had sexually assaulted his mother. Mitchell, Noah, Ryder, and their girlfriends, Karen Hatfield and Stacy Carmichael, went to Baker's house. At Baker's home, the four men––Baker, Mitchell, Ryder, and Noah––talked about going to Kevin's house to "whip his ass." After they talked for about fifteen minutes, Mitchell and Noah got in one car, Ryder and Baker got in another, and they drove to Kevin's.
Back at Kevin's place, Dreama had gone upstairs to bed while Kevin was passed out in the bed of a flatbed truck that was parked in his truck-repair shop. When Baker and the others arrived, they banged on the door awaking Dreama. Eventually, Baker and the others entered Kevin's place,2 pulled Kevin out of the truck bed, and begin hitting and kicking him.
After the attack, Baker and the others returned to Baker's house. Dreama called 911 to report the attack. In her report, she was able to identify the assailants, including Baker.3 Kevin was severely beaten in the attack. His mandible was fractured in several places, and both cheekbones and his eye sockets had multiple fractures.
Baker was charged as an accomplice in the aggravated residential burglary and first-degree battery. The information also reflected an enhancement for engaging in violent criminal group activity. Following a jury trial, Baker was convicted on both counts and the enhancement. The jury imposed a sentence of ten years for the aggravated residential burglary and eight years for the first-degree battery and recommended that they be served consecutively. The circuit court accepted the jury's recommendation, and Baker was sentenced to a total of eighteen years in prison. His timely appeal followed.
Baker's first four points on appeal challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for aggravated residential burglary and first-degree battery. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court determines whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Anderson v. State , 2011 Ark. 461, 385 S.W.3d 214. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Camp v. State , 2011 Ark. 155, 381 S.W.3d 11. On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Milner v. State , 2020 Ark. App. 546, 2020 WL 7074256.
Of his four arguments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Baker raises two arguments challenging his conviction for aggravated residential burglary. We therefore set out the relevant statutory provisions here. A person commits aggravated residential burglary if he or she inflicts or attempts to inflict death or serious physical injury on another person while committing residential burglary as defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-204(a)(2) (Repl. 2013). A person commits residential burglary if he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a residential occupiable structure of another person with the purpose of committing in the residential occupiable structure any offense punishable by imprisonment. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-201(a)(1) (Repl. 2013). A "residential occupiable structure" means a vehicle, building, or other structure in which any person lives or that is customarily used for overnight accommodation of a person whether or not a person is actually present. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-101(8)(A) (Supp. 2019).
Baker argues first that the building in which the assault took place was not a "residential occupiable structure." He contends that the truck-repair shop where the attack happened was not Kevin's residence, so he therefore could not be guilty of aggravated residential burglary. We disagree.
According to our caselaw, "[j]ust as the definition of ‘occupiable’ does not depend on the presence of a person in a building, it does not depend on whether it is being used for some other purpose as long as ‘the nature of the premise’ is that it is ‘occupiable.’ " Julian v. State , 298 Ark. 302, 304, 767 S.W.2d 300, 301 (1989). In Horton v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 250, 2014 WL 1661504, this court held that a garage attached to a house was a residential occupiable structure despite appellant's argument that there was no evidence that the burglary victim lived in the garage or customarily used it for overnight accommodation. This court determined that because the garage was attached to the home and was an integral part of the home and was a place "where people are likely to be," it met the statutory definition of a residential occupiable structure. Id. at 6.
Applying this caselaw to the facts presented at trial, we conclude that Kevin's shop was an "occupiable residential structure." Dreama testified that Kevin had a "room upstairs" in his truck-repair shop and had been living there since 2015. She explained that he had a bed and living space with running water, a bathroom, a place to cook, and an air conditioner. She further testified that she stayed with Kevin three nights a week and had spent the night there before the attack. Kevin testified that he had built the apartment in his garage and had lived there for a year and half or two years; he said that he had running water, was able to cook for himself, and had a bed and an air conditioner. Thus, the jury was presented with evidence that the shop where Kevin built his apartment was "occupiable" and was a place "where people are likely to be."
Baker nonetheless argues that the State failed to prove that he or any of the participants in the attack entered the residential portion of the building to commit the offenses; rather, he contends that the evidence proves at best entry into the commercial portion of the premises. However, he cites no authority for the premise that a crime must be committed solely within the confines of a living space that is found within a larger building. It is axiomatic that we will not consider arguments that are unsupported by convincing argument or citation to relevant authority. See Butry-Weston v. State , 2021 Ark. App. 51, 616 S.W.3d 685 ; King v. State , 2016 Ark. App. 292, 494 S.W.3d 463.
In his second challenge to his conviction for aggravated residential burglary, Baker contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the "burglary" element of his conviction because there was no evidence that he unlawfully entered the premises. As noted above, to commit aggravated residential burglary, one must commit residential burglary, which requires that one enter or remain unlawfully in a residential occupiable structure with the purpose of committing any offense punishable by imprisonment. To "enter or remain unlawfully" means "to enter or remain in or upon premises when not licensed or privileged to enter or remain in or upon the premises." Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-101(3)(A) ; Jefferson v. State , 2017 Ark. App. 492, 532 S.W.3d 75.
Baker contends that there was no proof that he "entered [the] shop illegally or [was] told to get out." We disagree. Admittedly, the jury was presented with conflicting evidence of how entry was obtained. Dreama testified that she was awakened by loud banging at the door and that she was only halfway across the room when the door swung open with Baker and the others...
To continue reading
Request your trial