Wilson v. State

Decision Date19 February 1997
Docket NumberNo. CACR,CACR
Citation56 Ark.App. 47,939 S.W.2d 313
PartiesJames F. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 96-600. . Division IV
CourtArkansas Court of Appeals

William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, Llewellyn J. Marczuk, Deputy Public Defender, Little Rock, for Appellant.

Winston Bryant, Attorney General, Gil Dudley, Assistant Attorney General, Little Rock, for Appellee.

ROBBINS, Chief Judge.

On January 3, 1996, the appellant was tried before the court and convicted of attempted theft by deception, a Class C felony. Appellant was sentenced as an habitual offender to five years in the Arkansas Department of Correction, with five days of jail credit. Appellant contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of theft by deception, and that the trial court erred in denying him jail credit of 400 days. We find no error and affirm.

Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal in criminal cases, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirm if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. Muhammed v. State, 27 Ark.App. 188, 769 S.W.2d 33 (1989). Substantial evidence is evidence that is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable and material certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Wilson v. State, 277 Ark. 43, 639 S.W.2d 45 (1982). The fact that some evidence is circumstantial does not render it insubstantial. Alford v. State, 33 Ark.App. 179, 804 S.W.2d 370 (1991).

The evidence before the trial court indicated that Nancy Babb was contacted by a friend who worked at the American Legion. Ms. Babb's son was involved in activities that had resulted in criminal charges being brought against him. Ms. Babb went to the American Legion and met with the appellant, James Wilson, who informed her that he was the director of an organization called FAMM. Ms. Babb testified that the appellant told her he was purchasing land and a home in Cabot for the purpose of operating a program to keep juveniles out of criminal trouble and jail. Appellant told her that her son would have to go through his nine-month program to stay out of jail.

Ms. Babb testified that the appellant later contacted her by telephone, and they met at the American Legion a few more times. At appellant's request, Ms. Babb drove him to the prosecutor's office and the Pulaski County Jail, allegedly for appellant to make some contacts concerning her son.

On January 4, 1995, after appellant telephoned her and stated, "The money's here. I need you to come up here," Ms. Babb met with him at the American Legion for the last time. When Ms. Babb arrived, her boyfriend, Mike Laneer, and appellant were talking about Mr. Laneer having money to pay the appellant. Mr. Laneer left, and Ms. Babb and appellant discussed how the appellant was going to help her son stay out of jail. The appellant told Ms. Babb that her son would not have to serve any jail time, but would have to participate in his nine-month program. He told Ms. Babb that "it's going to cost you Five Thousand Dollars." When she asked how he could guarantee that her son would not go to prison and asked what all the money was for, the appellant stated, "part of it will go to the judge, part of it to the prosecutor." She asked the appellant if this was an "under the table" transaction, and the appellant told her it was. Appellant pressured Ms. Babb to go to Mr. Laneer's home that night to get the money, but she told him to call her in the morning.

The next morning, January 5, 1995, Ms. Babb called Larry Jegley at the prosecutor's office to tell him what was occurring. After she explained everything, Mr. Jegley had North Little Rock Police Detective Jim Scott contact Ms. Babb. At one point Ms. Babb was talking to the appellant when Detective Scott telephoned. She informed the detective of the situation and put him on a three-way telephone call with the appellant, without the appellant being aware that the detective was monitoring the call. The appellant went over the plan step by step, and they arranged to meet at Mr. Laneer's auto parts store later that morning.

Detective Scott and Detective David Dallas met Ms. Babb at the parts store prior to the appellant's arrival. Ms. Babb worked at this store as her boyfriend's (Mr. Laneer's) secretary and had an office with a two-way mirror. The store was also equipped with a video and audio monitor. The detectives positioned the camera so they could observe the appellant and Ms. Babb prior to his arrival.

When the appellant arrived, he and Ms. Babb went over the plan one final time while the detectives listened. Detective Scott corroborated Ms. Babb's testimony and further testified that the appellant explained to Ms Babb that for five thousand dollars he would have her son's charges taken care of by paying off certain officials. Detective Scott testified that the appellant stated he would be keeping seven hundred and fifty dollars for himself and the rest would go to the prosecutors and judges, but never mentioned any names. Appellant agreed to accept a check for three thousand dollars that day and set up a payment plan for the two-thousand-dollar balance. Both Ms. Babb and Detective Scott testified that Ms. Babb wrote the appellant a check for three thousand dollars, and the appellant wrote out a receipt. Ms. Babb gave the check to the appellant and then went out of the store to her vehicle. Mr. Laneer, who corroborated this testimony, informed the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Brown v State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • 27 Junio 2001
    ...the light most favorable to the appellee and affirms if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. Wilson v. State, 56 Ark. App. 47, 48, 939 S.W.2d 313, 314 (1997). Substantial evidence is that which has sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conc......
  • Donovan v State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 25 Octubre 2000
    ...Ark. App. 219, 970 S.W.2d 313 (1998). This court affirms the conviction if it is supported by substantial evidence. Wilson v. State, 56 Ark. App. 47, 939 S.W.2d 313 (1997). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence convicting him, the evidence is viewed in the light most f......
  • Furlow v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • 5 Abril 2023
    ... ... Robinson v ... State , 11 Ark.App. 18, 665 S.W.2d 890 (1984). Even if an ... instruction contains a correct statement of the law, it does ... not mean it is an error for the circuit court to refuse to ... give it if there is no basis in the evidence for it ... Wilson v. State , 9 Ark.App. 213, 657 S.W.2d 558 ... (1983). This court has uniformly held that where the evidence ... does not support an instruction, it should be refused ... See Sims v. State , 171 Ark. 799, 286 S.W. 981 ... (1926). Furlow's three statements and sworn testimony ... showed that ... ...
  • Bush v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • 6 Abril 2005
    ...62 Ark.App. 219, 970 S.W.2d 313 (1998). This court affirms the conviction if it is supported by substantial evidence. Wilson v. State, 56 Ark.App. 47, 939 S.W.2d 313 (1997). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence convicting him, the evidence is viewed in the light most ......
  • 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