Flemons v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. CACR12-867,CACR12-867 |
| Citation | 2013 Ark. App. 239 |
| Parties | AARON ANTHONY FLEMONS APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Appellant Aaron Anthony Flemons appeals his convictions for delivery of cocaine and delivery of a counterfeit substance. On appeal, he argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine. We affirm.
Appellant was charged with three counts of delivery of cocaine and one count of delivery of a counterfeit substance after a series of controlled buys performed by the Fort Smith Police Department using a confidential informant. Prior to trial, appellant moved in limine to exclude the informant's testimony because it would be unreliable due to the fact that she received payment for her work as an informant. The trial court denied the motion, noting that the payment issue reflected on the informant's credibility, not the admissibility of her testimony.
At trial, Gretchen Carney testified that she became an informant for the Fort Smith Police Department after being charged with several drug offenses. Carney said that she knew appellant by the name Tony Herrera and that she had previously bought crack cocaine from him. Carney and Officer Greg Napier testified regarding four controlled buys from appellant conducted on May 17, May 18, May 24, and May 31 of 2011. On each of these dates, Carney made a recorded phone call to appellant to arrange a meeting location. Napier would then search Carney to ensure that she had no contraband. The search included having Carney show Napier her waistband and pull out and shake other clothing. Napier then gave Carney $100 in buy money and a device to record and transmit the transaction. Recordings and transcripts of Carney's phone calls and transactions with appellant were admitted into evidence.
On the first occasion, Napier and other officers watched as Carney got into appellant's car, which was also occupied by two other men. Carney testified that, as appellant drove around the block, he gave her five pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100. Appellant then dropped Carney off, and Napier watched Carney walk back to the officers. Carney gave Napier the drugs and was searched again in the same manner. The same procedure was followed for the second controlled buy. Napier said that he lost sight of Carney for a second or two at a time as she paced back and forth in her apartment parking lot waiting for appellant to arrive. Appellant arrived alone and they stayed in his car in the parking lot to complete the transaction. Carney purchased six pieces of crack cocaine for $100. On May 24, appellant was alone and he again took Carney for a ride around the block to complete the transaction.Carney was sold four pieces of crack cocaine on this date.
On May 31, a fourth buy was performed. When appellant arrived at the meeting location, Carney and appellant exchanged cigarette packs through his car window. Carney had put her $100 in a cigarette pack and appellant represented that crack cocaine was in his pack. The police arrested appellant after the transaction was completed. No money was found on appellant or in his car, but the other people in the car were not searched. In the cigarette pack appellant had given to Carney, a substance wrapped up like cocaine was determined not to be a controlled substance.
Appellant moved for a directed verdict on all four charges, arguing that the evidence was not reliable and that the State had not proved that he was the person who delivered the contraband. Appellant also moved for Carney's testimony to be stricken because it was inconsistent, she was not credible, and she could not remember certain aspects of the controlled buys. Both motions were denied, and the jury found appellant guilty on all counts. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Wilson v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 382. Evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture. Id. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. In considering the evidence, we will not weigh the evidence or assess credibility, as those are questions for the finder of fact. Id.
Appellant argues that there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flemons v. State
...for the cocaine delivery charges, proximity to a church or park. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Flemons v. State , 2013 Ark. App. 239, 2013 WL 1681775.In separate proceedings later the same year, Flemons was also convicted of fleeing apprehension and leaving the scene ......
-
Flemons v. Kelley, CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00187-BRW-JTK
...erred in denying his motion in limine. (DE # 9-4) On April 17, 2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Flemons v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 239. Petitioner appealed his conviction in Case No. CR-2011-987 (the "fleeing case"), contending that there was insufficient evidence ......