Opinion

Brown v. State

  • 2016 Ark. App. 381
Court
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Filed
Sep 7, 2016
Status
Published
On the bench
Phillip T. Whiteaker
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 2.8%

The opinion

Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 381

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV

No. CR-15-1047

DAMION RAYNELL BROWN Opinion Delivered September 7, 2016

APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM THE CHICOT

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

V. [NO. CR2014-94-1]

HONORABLE SAM POPE, JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

A Chicot County jury found appellant Damion Raynell Brown guilty of two counts

of second-degree unlawful firearm discharge and of being a felon in possession of a firearm.1

He was sentenced to ten years in the Arkansas Department of Correction on each firearm-

discharge count and five years’ incarceration on the unlawful-possession-of-a-firearm count,

to be served concurrently. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support

his convictions on all three counts. Because Brown did not preserve these arguments for

appeal, we affirm.

This court has consistently held that Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1

requires that an appellant move for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s evidence and

again at the close of all of the evidence, and that the failure to do so waives a challenge to the

sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Ballinger v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 177, 486 S.W.3d 239.

1

A third count of second-degree unlawful firearm discharge was nolle prossed prior

to trial.

Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 381

In King v. State, 338 Ark. 591, 999 S.W.2d 183 (1999), our supreme court specifically held

that the failure to renew a motion for directed verdict after the close of the State’s rebuttal

testimony waives the issue of sufficiency of the evidence. At trial, Brown moved for a directed

verdict at the end of the State’s case and at the end of the defense’s case-in-chief; however,

he failed to renew his motion at the close of all the evidence. Thus, we hold that Brown

failed to preserve the question of the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to properly renew

his motion for directed verdict after the State’s rebuttal testimony. Accordingly, we affirm.

KINARD and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Wilson Law Firm, P.A., by: E. Dion Wilson, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.