Willis v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 03 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 299 Ark. 356,772 S.W.2d 584 |
| Parties | Beverly WILLIS and Kenneth Dokes, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 89-14. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
James P. Clouette, Little Rock, for appellant.
Appellants, Beverly Willis and Kenneth Dokes, were convicted of various crimes in seven different cases tried to the court. This appeal involves three of those convictions. We affirm the judgments of conviction.
The appellants were convicted, as co-defendants, of robbery in Pulaski County Circuit Court, Case No. 85-3181. They argue that conviction should be reversed because the trial judge failed to formally pronounce the verdict of guilty as required by Ark.Code Ann. § 16-90-106(b) (1987). The criminal code requires that pronouncement, and the trial judge should make it in every case. Nevertheless, the appellants were represented by counsel, made no objection, did not file a motion for a new trial, and have not suggested in their appellate brief any possibility of prejudice as a result of the omission. It is necessary to raise an issue in the trial court before we will consider it on appeal. Further, there was no prejudice in the omission. Accordingly, we do not reverse on this point. See Heard v. State, 272 Ark. 140, 612 S.W.2d 312 (1981).
Next, appellant Dokes argues that the proof was not sufficient to support his separate conviction for theft of property in Case No. 84-675. In that case, the Information listed several credit cards which had been stolen from the victim, but there was no mention of stolen cash.
The evidence showed that in a classic "pigeon drop" scheme, Dokes and the co-defendant took the victim's billfold containing $200.00 cash and several credit cards. Four or five weeks later, the victim received a call from a North Little Rock Post Office. Postal officials informed him that they had found his billfold in a mail drop box. His credit cards were still in the billfold, but the cash was gone.
Appellant Dokes argues that because the victim subsequently recovered the billfold containing the credit cards, Dokes did not take the billfold with the intention of depriving the victim of the credit cards. The argument has no merit.
The question of intent is one for the trier of fact, in this case, the trial court. See Schultz v. State, 219 Ark. 217, 242 S.W.2d 131 (1951). There was ample evidence to support the trial court's finding that the requisite intent to deprive the victim of his credit cards was present under the facts of this case.
All seven of the cases were originally set for September 12-13, 1988. Just before the trials were to commence, the State discovered that a material witness for Case No. 86-13 was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Debra A.E.
-
Johnson v. Kelley
...of section 16-90-106 must be raised at the time of the hearing before it will be considered by this court on appeal. Willis v. State , 299 Ark. 356, 772 S.W.2d 584 (1989) ; Goff v. State , 341 Ark. 567, 19 S.W.3d 579 (2000). This is because an error in a plea proceeding is not a jurisdictio......
-
Dokes v. Lockhart, 92-2350
...consecutively. Both Dokes and Willis appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court and their convictions were affirmed. Willis v. State of Ark., 299 Ark. 356, 772 S.W.2d 584 (1989). Although represented by trial counsel on appeal, Dokes attempted to file a supplemental pro se appellate brief, whic......
-
Harrison v. State
...response to the discovery request. We do not consider on appeal an issue not presented to the trial court. Willis v. State, 299 Ark. 356, 772 S.W.2d 584 (1989). Harrison's appellate counsel argues, without citation of authority, that Harrison is not bound by his trial counsel's statement be......