Patterson v. State, 5765

• Decision Date: 30 October 1972
• Docket Number: No. 5765,5765
• Citation: 486 S.W.2d 19,253 Ark. 393
• Parties: Russell A. PATTERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 19

486 S.W.2d 19

253 Ark. 393

Russell A. PATTERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. 5765.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Oct. 30, 1972.

Phillip H. Loh, Morrilton, for appellant.

Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., by James A. Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

HOLT, Justice.

Appellant was convicted on three counts of possessing stolen property. The jury assessed his punishment at 21 years imprisonment in the state penitentiary on each of the three charges. The trial court directed that the sentences be served consecutively. For reversal appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions and is 'contrary to the law'.

On appeal we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and if there is any substantial evidence to support the jury verdict, we affirm. Ballew v. State, 246 Ark. 1191, 441 S.W.2d 453 (1969). Appellant was charged separately with possessing a riding mower, a saddle, and a quantity (20) of automobile batteries in violation of Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41--3938 (1964 Repl.). The state adduced evidence from the owners that these items were recently stolen and, also, the value of the property on each of these counts was in excess of $35. The stolen property was recovered from a farm which appellant had recently leased. Appellant testified that he paid $350 to an unidentified person for the riding mower. According to the merchant owner, it had a retail value of approximately $870. Appellant said he paid $125 to another unknown person for the saddle. The retail owner placed the value of the saddle at $190. Appellant was unable to produce a receipt for the purchase of the mower or saddle. The appellant testified that the day after he and his family moved on the farm he noticed the 20 batteries stacked in his front yard. Several of these batteries were still in the cartons with the make and owner's name on them. According to the bulk dealer, the batteries would sell for approximately $500.

Appellant was employed in Little Rock and the farm was located near Plumerville or approximately 38 miles distant. Appellant testified he owned some riding horses and dogs and it appears he leased the farm primarily for a place to keep them. He, also, maintained a residence in North Little Rock. The owner of the farm testified that none of the stolen property was on his farm when he vacated and leased the farm to the appellant. Appellant denied having any knowledge that the property items in his possession were stolen.

In order to constitute a violation of § 41--3938, it is necessary that the person possessing the stolen goods know the property is stolen. The possession of recently stolen property, if unsatisfactorily explained to the jury, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Paschal v. State, 243 Ark. 329, 420 S.W.2d 73 (1967), Evans v. State, 252 Ark. ---, 478 S.W.2d 874 (1972). In the case at bar, the recently stolen property was found in appellant's possession. His explanation as to the circumstances of his possession was not accepted by the jury as being true. The jury very well could infer from the evidence that appellant was knowingly in possession of the recently stolen property with the intent to deprive the true owners of their property. We think the evidence is amply substantial to sustain the jury's verdicts.

Appellant next makes the argument that the three 21 year sentences totaling 63 years are excessive. We have many times held that we do not disturb a penalty where a jury assesses the punishment within the limits prescribed by law. The punishment assessed by the jury was within the statutory limits. (1--21 Years, § 41--3938, supr...