ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN E. JENNINGS, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

CACR 01-1280

October 30, 2002

MICAH EUGENE WILLIAMS APPEAL FROM PULASKI COUNTY

APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT

VS.

HONORABLE WILLARD PROCTOR JR.,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

A jury found Micah Eugene Williams guilty as an accomplice to two counts of attempted first-degree murder, rape, two counts of kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of misdemeanor theft. Appellant was sentenced to serve a total of fifty years in prison. He argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We disagree and affirm.

When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State andconsider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Burmingham v. State, 342 Ark. 95, 27 S.W.3d 351 (2000). We affirm a convic tion if substantial evidence exists to support it. Carmichael v. State, 340 Ark. 598, 12 S.W.3d 225 (2000). Substantial evidence is that evidence which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without having to resort to speculation or conjecture. Price v. State, 347 Ark. 708, 66 S.W.3d 653 (2002).

Under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-2-403(a)(1) and (2) (Repl. 1997), a person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense, he solicits, advises, encourages, or coerces the other person to commit it or aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in planning or committing it. Presence of an accused in the proximity of a crime, opportunity, and association with a person involved in the crime in a manner suggestive of joint participation are relevant factors in determin ing the connection of an accomplice with the crime. Alford v. State, 33 Ark. App. 179, 804 S.W.2d 370 (1991).

On May 16, 1999, Kerry Robinson was on a date with Shamekia Grimes in Conway when he received a page from James Nichols. Robinson drove to the "East End" community in Little Rock to pick up Nichols, who needed a ride. Nichols and appellant got into thecar with Robinson and Grimes and drove to a parking lot near a Waffle House. Robinson testified that appellant hit him on the head with a gun and forced him into the trunk of his car. En route back to the East End, Nichols, who was now driving Robinson's car, instructed Grimes to take off her clothes and perform oral sex on him. Nichols then ordered Grimes into the backseat to perform oral sex on appellant. Grimes testified that she remembered seeing a gun between the front seats and a gun in the back seat. Grimes was driven to a nearby field with Robinson still in the trunk of the car and was told to "get in the trunk for a little while." Grimes became frightened and ran. Nichols caught her and tied a shirt around her mouth so she could not scream, and appellant, who was brandishing a gun, threatened to shoot her if she ran again. Nichols and appellant took Grimes's rings and then took Robinson's jewelry and contents of his pockets at gunpoint. Grimes and Robinson were then doused with gasoline and set on fire.

Appellant argues that there is no evidence that places him at the scene of the crime and points out that, although both guns were tested for fingerprints, the prints did not match his. While it is true that no fingerprints were found on the weapons, both victims identified appellant as one of their assailants. Although appellant argues that the victims' testimony was so inconsistent and contradictory that it was unreliable, it was for the jury toresolve inconsistencies in testimony, and we will not disturb the jury's credibility assessment. See Jenkins v. State, 348 Ark. 686, 75 S.W.3d 180 (2002).

Finally, appellant contends that he was not an active participant in the crimes against Robinson and Grimes. A person need not take an active part in an offense to be convicted as an accomplice if the person accompanied the person or persons who actually committed the offense and assisted in such commission. Gibson v. State, 316 Ark. 705, 875 S.W.2d 58 (1994). A participant cannot disclaim responsibility for all of the conduct in a particular episode because he did not personally take part in every act leading up to the accomplishment of the crime. See Releford v. State, 59 Ark. App. 136, 954 S.W.2d 295 (1997). There was substantial evidence that appellant played more than a mere passive role in the commission of offenses against Grimes and Robinson.

Affirmed.

Hart and Griffen, JJ., agree.