ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN E. JENNINGS, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

CACR 00-1215

May 23, 2001

RICARDO ANTONIO BREWER APPEAL FROM GARLAND COUNTY

APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT

VS.

HONORABLE JOHN H. WRIGHT

CIRCUIT JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

In a jury trial, Ricardo Antonio Brewer was found guilty of committing a terroristic act, and he was sentenced to a term of twenty-four years in prison. Appellant argues on appeal that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilt and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

A person commits a terroristic act when, while not in the commission of a lawful act, he shoots at or in any manner projects an object with the purpose to cause injury to persons or propertyat a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-310(a)(1) (Repl. 1997). 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. Wilson v. State, 56 Ark. App. 47, 939 S.W.2d 313 (1997). Evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, is substantial if it is of sufficient force that it will compel a conclusion one way or the other without recourse to speculation and conjecture. Rose v. State, 72 Ark. App. 175, 35 S.W.3d 365 (2000).

At trial, Harold Qualls testified that he was on West Maurice Street in Hot Springs on April 20, 1999. He said that he saw a white Cadillac run a stop sign and do a "half moon." He saw another white vehicle ahead of the Cadillac that had also turned a "half moon." Qualls said that it appeared to him that the other white vehicle had cut off the Cadillac. He testified that the vehicles ended up side by side and that "both cars began blasting away at each other." Qualls was able to get the license plate number of the white vehicle, and he rode his bicycle to a pay phone to call 911.

Officer Mark Willis testified that he was flagged down by a man named Tim West, who was in his white Cadillac at a servicestation at Grand and Central Streets. West told Willis that he and his brother, LenDaniel, had just been shot by appellant and other unidentified black males who were riding in appellant's white Grand Am. Willis observed that Tim West had been shot in the arm and shoulder, while LenDaniel had been shot in the hand. Willis reported the incident and sent the Wests to the hospital.

Officer Jim Henson heard the bulletin and fell in behind a white Grand Am. He confirmed the license plate number as being that of the suspect vehicle and continued to follow the vehicle while waiting for backup. Henson testified that he saw four black males in the vehicle, and he said that he recognized appellant as the driver from previous experiences. Henson testified that the vehicle slowed down and that one of the men exited the car and ran. He said that the vehicle then took off at a high rate of speed, reaching speeds of seventy-five to eighty miles an hour as it traveled through a residential neighborhood. Henson gave chase and saw a weapon being thrown from the driver's-side window as the vehicle made a turn at Yerger and Neptune Streets. Henson said that the vehicle stopped in front of a church on Blake Street and that the three occupants got out and ran. He pursued them on foot but returned to the suspect vehicle when the men ran into a wooded area.

Meanwhile, Officer Willis had been monitoring Henson's radio broadcasts. Upon hearing that the suspects were fleeing on foot, he went to an area where he thought he might apprehend them. On Fox Street, he encountered appellant, whom he recognized, and another man. The two surrendered without incident.

Officers later found three weapons along the three men's trail of flight from appellant's vehicle. Another weapon was found in the area where the first man had exited the vehicle. A gun was also found on Neptune Street. Thirteen shell casings were found at the Maurice Street location, and shell casings were also found in appellant's vehicle.

Officer Carl Holland interviewed Tim and LenDaniel West at the hospital, and he photographed their injuries. Holland testified that Tim West identified appellant as the driver of the vehicle from which the shots were fired. Holland also photographed Tim West's vehicle, which showed damage from gunfire.

Appellant's argument on appeal is that his conviction cannot stand because it is based on circumstantial evidence, since there was no witness who identified him as one of the individuals shooting a weapon. The fact that some evidence is circumstantial, however, does not render it insubstantial. Wilson v. State, supra. In fact, the law makes no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence in a review for sufficiency. Mayo v. State, 70Ark. App. 453, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2000). In any event, there was testimony offered without objection that Tim West identified appellant as a shooter. From our review of the record, we cannot say there is no substantial evidence to support the conviction.

Appellant also contends that he was denied effective assis tance of counsel at trial. Appellant did not raise this issue below, and we do not consider ineffective assistance of counsel as a point on direct appeal unless that issue has been considered by the trial court. Alexander v. State, 55 Ark. App. 148, 934 S.W.2d 927 (1996).

Affirmed.

Robbins and Baker, JJ., agree.