NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

JUDGE KAREN R. BAKER

DIVISION III

GERALD TONY OLLES

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS.

APPELLEE

CACR01-1204

SEPTEMBER 11, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[CR-01-122]

HONORABLE JOHN BERTRAN PLEGGE, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant was convicted of theft by receiving after a bench trial and sentenced to seven years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal, appellant contends that the State did not introduce sufficient evidence to prove that he knew or had reason to know that the pressure washer was stolen and that the State failed to prove that the pressure washer's value exceeded $500.00. However, appellant's first argument was not made to the trial court, and his second argument is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm.

Appellant testified that he purchased the pressure washer for $250.00 from two men in the K-mart parking lot. He testified that he sold the pressure washer to the pawn shop the next day, and the pawn shop employee testified that she paid $310 for it and planned to resell it for between $400 and $450. The State presented evidence that the maintenance worker for Harvest Foods was at a pawn shop when he recognized a pressure washer that he believed belonged to the

store. He reported it to the company and it was discovered that the pressure washer didbelong to Harvest Food and had been removed from the warehouse at an undetermined time. An employee from Harvest Food testified that a used pressure washer was worth nine hundred dollars ($900) and a new one would be worth sixteen hundred dollars ($1,600).

At the close of the State's evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict. He did not argue before the trial court, as he does on appeal, that there was insufficient evidence to prove he knew or had reason to know that the pressure washer was stolen. Appellant is limited by the scope and nature of his objections and arguments at trial, and he may not change the grounds for objection on appeal. E.g., Dye v. State, 70 Ark. App. 329, 332, 17 S.W.3d 505, 508 (2000). Therefore, we affirm on this point.

Appellant also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the value of the pressure washer exceeded $500.00. However, appellant's attorney in his motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, stated that there was "conflicting evidence on the basis of value." Specifically, the trial court had before it the testimony of the Harvest Food employee that a used pressure washer was worth nine hundred dollars ($900) and a new one would be worth sixteen hundred dollars ($1,600). Appellant's own motion acknowledged that there was evidence to support the trial court's finding regarding the value of the stolen property.

The appellate court does not weigh the evidence or pass on credibility of witnesses. That is left to the trier of fact, Brown v. State, 35 Ark.App. 156, 814 S.W.2d 918 (1991), who is free to accept some parts of a witness' testimony and reject other parts. White v. State, 39 Ark.App. 52, 837 S.W.2d 479 (1992). It is the duty of the trier of fact to resolve any contradictions, conflicts, and inconsistencies in the testimony. Larue v. State, 34 Ark.App. 131, 806 S.W.2d 35 (1991). Therefore, we affirm as to this point as well.

Affirmed.

Bird and Neal, JJ., agree.