Moore v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 13 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 954 S.W.2d 932,330 Ark. 514 |
| Parties | Vonnie L. MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 97-598. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Chris Tarver, Little Rock, for Appellant.
Winston Bryant, Atty. Gen., Mac Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for Appellee.
Vonnie L. Moore was alleged to have robbed cashiers at two grocery stores--one on February 26, 1996, and the other on February 27, 1996. He was charged with two counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of misdemeanor theft. The judgment and commitment order of record inaccurately shows that Mr. Moore was convicted of two aggravated robberies, both occurring on February 27, 1996. The trial transcript shows that the jury found Mr. Moore guilty of aggravated robbery and theft with respect to the robbery that occurred on February 27, 1996 (Count 2). As to the February 26, 1996, event (Count 1), however, Mr. Moore was found guilty of the lesser-included offense of robbery and of misdemeanor theft.
Mr. Moore was sentenced as an habitual offender to serve consecutive terms of life imprisonment for aggravated robbery, forty years' imprisonment for robbery, and one year in the county jail for each of the misdemeanor thefts. He appeals only the forty-year sentence received for the robbery on Count 1 and asserts that the evidence was insufficient and should not have been allowed to go to the jury. We affirm the conviction because Mr. Moore's motion for directed verdict challenging the sufficiency of the evidence concerned only the charge of aggravated robbery of which he was not convicted. The sentence is modified, however, to limit the total sentence for the misdemeanor thefts to one year, which is to be served concurrently with the felony sentences.
At the trial, Jamal Williams, the grocery-store clerk victimized in the February 26 robbery, was unable to identify Mr. Moore as the culprit; however, he had done so earlier upon viewing a photographic lineup. Mr. Williams testified that he was a cashier at the store robbed on February 26. The robber approached him at the register and asked for a pack of cigarettes. When Mr. Williams told the robber what he owed, the robber reached in his pocket and handed Mr. Williams a note that said, Mr. Williams testified that the robber said only that he did not want food stamps. The robber placed his hand in his coat pocket, and Mr. Williams said that he saw something "bulging out" toward him from the pocket where the robber's hand was and that he felt threatened and scared. He gave the robber all the cash from the register. Mr. Williams testified that he did not know what was in the robber's pocket, but he believed the "bulge" was a gun based on the way the robber had his hand in his pocket.
Robbery is defined in Ark.Code Ann. § 5-12-102(a) (Repl.1993), in significant part, as follows: "A person commits robbery if, with the purpose of committing a felony or misdemeanor theft ... he employs or threatens to immediately employ physical force upon another." One who commits robbery is guilty of aggravated robbery if one "is armed with a deadly weapon or represents by word or conduct that [one] is so armed; ...." Ark.Code Ann. § 5-12-103(a)(1) (Supp.1995).
The motion for a directed verdict at the trial was as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v State
...offense, a defendant's motion for a directed verdict must address the elements of the lesser-included offense. See Moore v. State, 330 Ark. 514, 954 S.W.2d 932 (1997); Webb v. State, 328 Ark. 12, 941 S.W.2d 417 (1997). Appellant moved for a directed verdict only on the ground that there was......
-
Brown v. State
...included offense, a defendant's motion for directed verdict must address the elements of the lesser included offense. Moore v. State, 330 Ark. 514, 954 S.W.2d 932 (1997) (citing Webb v. State, 328 Ark. 12, 941 S.W.2d 417 (1997); Jordan v. State, 323 Ark. 628, 917 S.W.2d 164 (1996)). In Walk......
-
Brawner v. State
...The State concedes this point on appeal. Therefore, this court modifies the sentences to run concurrently. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 330 Ark. 514, 954 S.W.2d 932 (1997).IV. Rule 404(b) EvidenceAppellant asserts that Renea was improperly allowed to testify that he was a very jealous person,......
-
Blake v. State, No. CACR 08-559 (Ark. App. 10/29/2008)
...must address the elements of the lesser-included offense. See Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 308, 65 S.W.3d 394 (2001); Moore v. State, 330 Ark. 514, 954 S.W.2d 932 (1997). A defendant must anticipate an instruction on a lesser-included offense and address the elements upon which he wishes to cha......