ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

DEBORAH LYNN BRYANT

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR00-1284

June 13, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH DIVISION

[NO. CR99-1638]

HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

The appellant in this criminal case was charged with residential burglary and theft of property. At her bench trial, there was evidence that appellant stole a bed from a vacant house. She moved for a directed verdict on the residential burglary charge, arguing that the State failed to prove that the vacant house was a residence. The trial judge agreed and stated that he would grant the motion and reduce the charge to the "lesser-included offense" of commercial burglary. Although the proceedings continued for some time thereafter, appellant made no further objection. She was found guilty of commercial burglary and theft of property and sentenced to two consecutive three-year terms of imprisonment. From that decision, comes this appeal.

For reversal, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction for commercial burglary because there is nothing to show that the vacant house was a commercial structure. We do not address this argument because it is raised for the first time on appeal. Appellant's directed-verdict motion was addressed solely to the charge of residential burglary and, although she had the opportunity to do so, she did not object to the trial court's reduction of the residential burglary charge to commercial burglary. Even at a bench trial, an appellant must move for dismissal at the close of all of the evidence and state the specific grounds therefor to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b) and (c) (2000); see Sharkey v. State, 71 Ark. App. 50, 25 S.W.3d 458 (2000). Moreover, a defendant is required to address the lesser-included offenses in his directed-verdict motion to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Jordan v. State, 323 Ark. 628, 917 S.W.2d 164 (1996), and such a motion must specify the manner in which the evidence is deficient. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b) and (c).

Affirmed.

Stroud, C.J., and Jennings, J., agree.