NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

SAM BIRD, JUDGE

DENNIS DAVIS,

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,

APPELLEE

CACR01-502

JANUARY 23, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NO. CR04-267, CR2000-24,

HON. DAVID BURNETT, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

In 1995, appellant Dennis Davis pleaded guilty to a robbery charge and was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment, with execution of sentence suspended for fifteen years. In 2000, the State charged Davis with battery and aggravated robbery of Johnny McMillian and petitioned to revoke his suspended sentence. The battery charge was dismissed, but Davis was convicted of aggravated robbery. The suspended sentence was revoked, and he was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment.

The altercation giving rise to Davis's arrest and conviction occurred in December of 1999. The State alleged that Davis offered Johnny McMillian a ride, but then beat McMillian and took his money and a snow globe that McMillian had just purchased as a Christmas gift. McMillian suffered a broken nose and lacerations to his eyes and mouth. Davis contends on appeal that there was not sufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty of aggravated robbery.

A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Box v. State, 74 Ark. App. 82, 45 S.W.3d 415 (2001). A motion for directed verdict, based upon the sufficiency of the evidence, must specifically state which element of the charge counsel believes is lacking or else it is waived. Houston v. State, 319 Ark. 498, 892 S.W.2d 274 (1995). The test for such motions is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient certainty and precision to compel a conclusion one way or another and pass beyond mere suspicion or conjecture. Id. On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id.

The State contends that Davis's sufficiency challenge is procedurally barred because the motion for directed verdict was not sufficiently specific. The State contends that neither the directed verdict motion, nor the renewal of the motion, directly questioned the sufficiency of the evidence as to the specific elements of aggravated robbery, and that, consequently, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was waived. As the basis for the motion for directed verdict, Davis's counsel argued that McMillian's testimony was not reliable because he was a drug user and that there was no evidence that Davis was the one who robbed McMillian. The renewed motion adopted the points previously raised.

Because counsel provided a specific challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the identity of the assailant, the challenge preserved the sufficiency of theevidence argument as to the finding that Davis was the individual who robbed McMillian.

Johnny McMillian, the victim, testified that Davis offered him a ride as he was walking from a store after purchasing a snow globe for a Christmas present; that he got in the truck; that the truck would not start; and that he tried to get out, but that Davis locked the truck, hit him, and demanded his money. He stated that he used his feet to fight off Davis. McMillian then testified that Davis reached into the back of the truck and told him that he had something for him. He testified that he assumed that Davis was reaching for a tire iron, but stated that he did not believe that Davis had a gun. McMillian stated that he gave Davis the money and that Davis kicked him out of the truck and kept his snow globe and money. He identified Davis as the person who robbed him.

Tim Bentley, an investigator with the Blytheville Police Department, testified that McMillian identified Davis as his attacker from a photographic lineup. He testified that Davis had blood spatters on his jacket and that there was blood on the ceiling, side door, and glass of the truck. He testified that there was a footprint on the truck window that matched the shoes that McMillian was wearing. Michael Nowicki, of the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, testified that testing showed that the DNA found on McMillian's jacket matched DNA found on Davis's shirt.

On matters of credibility of the witnesses and conflicting testimony, we have repeatedly held that the determination of those issues is left to the trier of fact. Galvin v.State, 323 Ark. 125, 912 S.W.2d 932 (1996); Wilson v. State, 320 Ark. 707, 898 S.W.2d 469 (1995). Further, the uncorroborated testimony of one State's witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Galvin, supra. In addition to McMillian's identification of Davis as the one who robbed him, both in the photographic lineup and during his trial testimony, McMillian's footprint was found on the window of the truck driven by Davis that night and matching DNA was found in blood on McMillian's jacket and Davis's shirt.

We hold that there is substantial evidence that Davis is guilty of aggravated robbery for the robbery of Johnny McMillian; therefore, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Pittman and Roaf, JJ., agree.