ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE

DIVISION III

MICHAEL ANTHONY BOURDO

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 02-33

OCTOBER 30, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

FOURTH DIVISION,

[NO. CA 201-755]

HONORABLE JOHN W.

LANGSTON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant Michael Anthony Bourdo was convicted in a bench trial of commercial burglary and Class C felony theft of property. He was sentenced to five years' probation, fined $500.00, and ordered to pay $1050.00 in restitution. Mr. Bourdo now appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Branstetter v. State, 346 Ark. 62, 57 S.W.3d 105 (2001). We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence that 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. Carmichael v. State, 340 Ark. 598, 12 S.W.3d 225 (2000). Circumstantial evidence may provide the basis tosupport a

conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Bangs v. State, 338 Ark. 515, 998 S.W.2d 738 (1999).

Gregory Matthew Lentz testified that he was the director of a ministry called The Institute in Basic Life Principles, and that the ministry was in the process of remodeling the old veterans' hospital in Little Rock for purposes of opening a center for delinquent youths and troubled families. He stated that his residence was within one hundred yards of the facility, and that there was a fence around the property with a locked gate.

On the evening of October 29, 2000, Mr. Lentz went to the building and found staff members talking and some tools laying in the parking lot. Mr. Lentz discovered that a locked window had been pried open, and upon entering the building found numerous tools missing. Mr. Lentz indicated that some of the tools had been removed from the area, including a screw gun, circular saw, and nail guns. Some of the missing tools belonged to him and some to the ministry. Mr. Lentz testified that he does not know Mr. Bourdo and did not give him permission to enter the property. On cross-examination, Mr. Lentz acknowledged that some tools were missing on October 27, 2000; however, he stated he saw the missing tools that are at issue on the following day, and did not observe the bent window until October 29, 2000.

Robert Spivey testified that he is employed by the ministry and also lives nearby. On the night of October 29, 2000, he was at home and observed what appeared to be two white males approaching the ministry's premises. The men were inside the fenced area, and when Mr. Spivey asked them if he could help them with anything, they quickly ran away. According to Mr. Spivey, the men retreated toward a fence line where a large hole was later discovered. At the time the men fled, they were near the tools that were found on the ground. Mr. Spivey testified that when he left work on the day before, a plate joiner, finish nailer, and framing nailer were all still there, but that they were missing after his encounter with the two men. He, too, stated that he has never met Mr. Bourdo.

Officer Darrell Casteel of the Little Rock Police Department testified that Mr. Bourdo became a suspect in the crimes and, after waiving his Miranda rights, gave a statement on December 6, 2000. In his statement, Mr. Bourdo admitted that he and some other people entered the old veterans' hospital building through a window about a month earlier. However, he would not specifically admit being there on the day of the burglary. Mr. Bourdo told Officer Casteel that the reason he went into the building was to go to the morgue and try to contact dead friends.

Nicole Burks of the LRPD Crime Scene Unit testified that she investigated the crime on October 29, 2000. Ms. Burks lifted fingerprints from the window that had been pried open, and one of the fingerprints matched that of Mr. Bourdo.

For reversal of his convictions, Mr. Bourdo argues that they are not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, he contends that the State failed to introduce substantial evidence of his identity as the person who committed the offenses.

In his brief Mr. Bourdo asserts that, while his fingerprint was lifted from the window that had been pried open, there was no evidence of whether the print was found on the outside of the window or the inside of the window. He cites Holloway v. State, 11 Ark. App.69, 666 S.W.2d 410 (1984), for the proposition that if a defendant's fingerprint is found on the outside of a structure, this is insufficient to prove burglary if it is the only proof of the defendant's identity as the perpetrator. Because there was no proof tending to show that he ever entered the building where the crimes occurred, Mr. Bourdo argues that there was insufficient evidence that he committed the burglary and theft. Mr. Bourdo submits that the State's proof was insufficient "because it consisted solely of a single fingerprint."

We hold that there was substantial evidence to support Mr. Bourdo's convictions for burglary and theft. Contrary to his argument, the State produced more evidence than just a fingerprint. During his interview with the police, Mr. Bourdo admitted that he entered the building through a window. Moreover, the window that tested positive for his fingerprint was found to be pried open on the night that the crimes occurred. While fingerprints alone may be insufficient to sustain a burglary conviction, fingerprints at the point of entry coupled with evidence that the defendant had been inside the building has been held to be sufficient. See Tucker v. State, 50 Ark. App. 203, 901 S.W.2d 865 (1995). In the case at bar, there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that Mr. Bourdo was the person who committed the burglary and theft.

Affirmed.

Pittman and Bird, JJ., agree.