Chatmon v. State, CR–13–1006

Decision Date29 January 2015
Docket NumberNo. CR–13–1006,CR–13–1006
Citation467 S.W.3d 731,2015 Ark. 28
PartiesRolandis Larenzo Chatmon, Appellant, v. State of Arkansas, Appellee.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Digby Law Firm, Little Rock, by: Bobby R. Digby II, for Appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass't Att'y Gen., for Appellee.

Opinion

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Rolandis Larenzo Chatmon appeals the order of the Faulkner County Circuit Court finding him guilty of three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft of property. He was sentenced, as a habitual offender with a firearm enhancement, to a total term of three life sentences, plus 360 months' imprisonment, to be served consecutively. On appeal, he argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions because the State failed to prove that he was the person who committed the crimes; (2) the circuit court erred in allowing the State to introduce into evidence certain recordings of phone conversations; and (3) the circuit court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction of this appeal is pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1–2(a)(2) (2014). We affirm.

The record reflects that on the evening of May 15, 2012, Derek Leidholm, his wife, Morgan, and their neighbor, Jansen McGuire, were in the garage of the Leidholms' house, when a man entered the garage, carrying a black semiautomatic pistol, and demanding money. After Jansen handed over a leather wallet, the man exited the garage from the left side, just as he had entered. Both Morgan and Jansen called 911 in separate calls. While they were doing so, Derek peeked around the corner of the garage and saw the man running “down the side ... through the yards.” Derek then saw a dark-color, midsize SUV proceed slowly through a stop sign without stopping, while the man ran beside it. After losing sight of the SUV, Derek remained outside of his garage, and then saw the SUV again, this time moving at a high rate of speed.

After receiving a subject description and vehicle description, officers checked the area. Specifically, police were looking for a tall, thin black male wearing a white shirt, black jeans, and possibly a blue baseball cap and carrying a black semiautomatic pistol. In addition, police sought what was possibly a black SUV. In checking nearby apartment complexes, police discovered a dark-colored SUV parked in a slanted position with a driver and a passenger sitting inside. After approaching the vehicle, police discovered a tall, thin black male, wearing a white shirt and black jeans, who identified himself as Chatmon; Chatmon informed the police that he and his passenger, Rodney Chambers, were about to leave.

At that time, Crystal Brown, Chatmon's then girlfriend and the owner of the SUV, came outside and subsequently consented to a search of the car. Police searched the vehicle, and a hat and a black semiautomatic pistol were found. Police also searched a nearby trash dumpster and discovered Jansen's wallet sitting on top of the trash inside the dumpster.

On May 18, 2012, a felony information was filed, charging Chatmon with three counts of aggravated robbery, one count of theft of property, and one count of possession of a firearm by certain persons.1 Chatmon was tried before a jury on August 8–9, 2013. He was convicted and sentenced, as previously set forth, and now appeals.

For his first point on appeal, Chatmon argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. He contends not that there was insufficient evidence of aggravated robbery and theft of property, but that there was insufficient evidence that he was the person who committed the crimes. Chatmon avers that there is only circumstantial evidence to support his convictions and that it was insufficient to identify him as the assailant. The State responds that substantial evidence exists to show that Chatmon committed the crimes, including his own admission to a fellow inmate at the county jail.

The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. See Wells v. State, 2013 Ark. 389, 430 S.W.3d 65. Substantial evidence is evidence that is forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. See id. On review, only evidence that supports the verdict is considered, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. See id.

A person commits aggravated robbery if he or she commits robbery as defined in Arkansas Code Annotated section 5–12–102,2 and the person (1) is armed with a deadly weapon, (2) represents by word or conduct that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon, or (3) inflicts or attempts to inflict death or serious physical injury upon another person. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5–12–103 (Repl. 2013). A person commits theft of property if, with the purpose of depriving the owner of the property, he knowingly (1) takes or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer of an interest in the property of another, or (2) obtains the property of another by threat. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5–36–103(a) (Repl. 2013).

Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the proof adduced at trial revealed the following. The Leidholms and Jansen each testified that a black male, armed with a gun, entered the Leidholms' garage and demanded money. Derek testified that once Jansen handed over his wallet, the assailant left, and his wife went inside to call 911 and Jansen left to go to his home. After checking on his wife, Derek went back outside to make sure the gunman was not going to return. He stated that he looked out of his garage and saw the robber running through the neighbors' yards and then noticed an SUV “creep through a stop sign.” Derek described the SUV as a dark-colored, midsize SUV, similar to a Toyota 4– Runner. According to Derek, he saw the SUV again when it drove past his house at approximately sixty miles per hour and failed to stop at a nearby stop sign. Derek described the gunman as African American, close to six feet tall, wearing high-top basketball shoes, dark blue jeans, a white shirt, and a fitted, straight-billed ball cap. He stated that the gun was black or synthetic in color and was a large-caliber handgun, about the size of a .9 millimeter or .45–caliber, semiautomatic handgun. When the State showed Derek the gun that was recovered when police arrested Chatmon, Derek stated that it appeared to be consistent with the gun used in the robbery. Derek also confirmed that a picture of the vehicle in which police found Chatmon shortly after the robbery matched the description of the vehicle he saw in his neighborhood after the robbery. Derek further identified the clothing that was taken from Chatmon after his arrest as the clothing worn by the person who committed the robberies.

Jansen testified that he called 911 after the robbery, and the State introduced the recording of that phone call into evidence. The recording was played for the jury and, on it, Jansen is heard telling the operator that a man showed up in the garage, with a gun, demanding their money and cell phones, and then ran off, possibly getting into a black Trailblazer. Jansen stated that the gunman was a black male and was wearing a white shirt, black pants, and a baseball cap. Jansen further stated that the assailant's baseball cap had some type of raised logo and a flat bill. He described the assailant as being about five feet, eleven inches tall and weighing approximately 140–150 pounds. According to Jansen, the assailant's gun was black, with a long barrel, and was not a revolver. When the State showed him pictures of the baseball hat and the gun recovered when police arrested Chatmon, Jansen confirmed that they were consistent with the hat worn and the gun used by the assailant. Jansen stated that he gave the man his wallet, which was a brown Fossil wallet, and confirmed that police recovered his wallet and returned it to him the day after the robbery.

Morgan testified as well. She stated that after the robbery she went into her home to call 911. The State introduced into evidence the recording of her call to 911 and published it to the jury. During this call, Morgan described the assailant as a black male, wearing a T-shirt, jeans, and a bandana over his face and carrying a black handgun. Morgan also testified at trial that the assailant was wearing a flat-billed hat and some type of high-top tennis shoes.

Officer Matt Edgmon, with the Conway Police Department, testified that he was on patrol the evening of May 15, 2012, when he received notice of a reported armed robbery nearby. After receiving a description of the suspect and a vehicle possibly connected to the crime, Officer Edgmon began searching the area for that vehicle. The suspect was described to the officer as a tall, thin black male, wearing a white shirt and black jeans and possibly a blue ball cap. Dispatch also reported that the suspect was armed with a black semiautomatic pistol, and the suspect vehicle was described as “a possibly black in color SUV.” Officer Edgmon began searching nearby apartment complexes, including the Stoneridge Apartments, when he noticed a dark-colored SUV that was parked in two slots and appeared to have been hastily parked. As he drove by, the officer noticed someone in the driver's seat, so he got out to speak with the person in the vehicle. As the officer approached the vehicle, the person on the driver's side of the vehicle began to exit. The officer noticed that he was a tall, thin black male, wearing a white shirt and black jeans and also noticed that there was a passenger in the vehicle. The driver, who stated he was a resident at the apartments, identified himself as Rolandis Chatmon and the passenger identified himself as Rodney Chambers. According to Officer Edgmon, as he was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Torres-Garcia v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • 21 Abril 2021
    ...court's decision but requires that the circuit court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. Chatmon v. State, 2015 Ark. 28, 467 S.W.3d 731. In this case, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Rivera's testimony pursuant to the pedo......
  • Holland v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 1 Octubre 2015
    ...court's decision, but requires that the circuit court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. Chatmon v. State,2015 Ark. 28, 467 S.W.3d 731.When the charge concerns the sexual abuse of a child, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, such as sexual abuse of that c......
  • Armstrong v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 8 Octubre 2020
    ...arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. E.g. , Chatmon v. State , 2015 Ark. 28, 467 S.W.3d 731. Even constitutional arguments must first be raised to the circuit court and ruled upon in order to preserve the issue for ap......
  • Chatmon v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 3 Agosto 2017
    ...2013 conviction for three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft of property was affirmed on appeal, Chatmon v. State, 2015 Ark. 28, 467 S.W.3d 731, and the trial court cannot entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal unless......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT