ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

ROBERT DEAN VANDERBERG

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 01-1354

NOVEMBER 6, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION, [NO. CR 201-1324]

HONORABLE DAVID BOGARD,

JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant Robert Dean Vanderberg was convicted in a bench trial of violating the Arkansas Hot Check Law under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-37-302 (Repl. 1997). He was sentenced to five years in prison and now appeals. For reversal, Mr. Vanderberg argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the State failed to introduce substantial evidence that he was the person who delivered the checks at issue. 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. Williams v. State, 346 Ark. 304, 57 S.W.3d 706 (2001). We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Carmichael v. State, 340 Ark. 598, 12 S.W.3d 225 (2000). 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. Haynes v. State, 346 Ark. 388, 58 S.W.3d 336 (2001). Decisions regarding credibility of witnesses are for the trier of fact, and the trier of fact is not required to believe any witness's testimony, especially the testimony of the accused since he is the person most interested in the outcome of the trial. Ross v. State, 300 Ark. 369, 779 S.W.2d 161 (1989).

During the trial, the State introduced seven checks that bore Mr. Vanderberg's signature and had been returned by his bank for lack of sufficient funds. These checks totaled $638.56 and were made payable to Kroger, Wal-Mart, and Shell. Also in evidence was Mr. Vanderberg's photo ID card with ID number 392302439.

Jamie King testified that in November 1999 she was working as a cashier at Kroger. She identified a returned check made out for $32.37, which contained her initials and Mr. Vanderberg's ID number written in ink. Ms. King stated that she accepted the check, asked for a driver's license, and wrote her initials and Mr. Vanderberg's ID number on the check.

Mary Caples testified that she worked at Kroger in November 1999, and she explained that a driver's license number was written on any customer checks by the cashier accepting the check. She further stated, "If you went in Kroger and wrote a check and you wrote your own driver's license number on there, that would not be sufficient."

Linda Conder, another Kroger employee, also testified. She testified that, "When we accept checks, we actually look at the driver's license, too, and verify that it's the same person."

Allison Lee, a Wal-Mart employee, testified regarding the procedure for accepting checks at Wal-Mart. She stated:

Each of the seven checks, including those written at Wal-Mart, contained the handwritten ID number 392302439.

Sue Harrison, Vice President of Customer Service at Union Bank, testified that Mr. Vanderberg had a checking account in the fall of 1999. She stated that deposits were made into his account, but that checks were written that exceeded his funds. Ms. Harrison testified that as of November 16, 1999, his account reflected a negative balance of more than six hundred dollars.

Ladonna Gibson, deputy clerk for the Sherwood Hot Check Department, testified that after his arrest Mr. Vanderberg was given an opportunity to look at the checks at issue. According to Ms. Gibson, Mr. Vanderberg stated that he was drunk when he signed the checks.

Mr. Vanderberg testified on his own behalf, and stated that he had a drinking problem in November 1999. He stated that he could not remember writing any of the checks presented by the State. However, he recognized his signature on some of the checks, so he acknowledged that he must have signed them.

Mr. Vanderberg testified that although he signed checks, he did not write the amount or store name on them. He maintained that a man named Tim Million forced him to write the checks. He stated that during the month of November 1999, Mr. Million drugged him and deliberately kept him drunk, and that he has no recollection of going into any of the stores where the checks were written.

Mr. Vanderberg argues on appeal that his conviction should be reversed because there was no substantial evidence that he was the person who delivered the hot checks. He asserts that no witness for the State testified that Mr. Vanderberg delivered him or her a hot check. Mr. Vanderberg concedes that the State proved that someone must have delivered the seven checks at issue, but contends that the State failed to prove that it was him.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-7-302(1) (Repl. 1997) provides that it is unlawful to make or deliver a check to procure anything of value, while having the intent to defraud and knowing there are insufficient funds to cover the check. We hold that there was substantial evidence that Mr. Vanderberg made and delivered the checks at issue.

As Mr. Vanderberg acknowledges in his brief, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a conviction if it indicates the accused's guilt and excludes every other reasonable hypothesis. See Lindsey v. State, 68 Ark. App. 70, 3 S.W.3d 346 (1999). In this case circumstantial evidence supports his conviction. Testimony from the various cashiers demonstrated that when a check is accepted as payment, the cashier asks for photo identification and writes the ID number on the check. In this case Mr. Vanderberg's IDnumber was handwritten on each of the seven checks, indicating that he must have presented his photo ID at the time the checks were delivered.

Moreover, there was evidence that Mr. Vanderberg admitted after his arrest, to signing the checks, and he also admitted in his testimony that he signed some of the checks. He explained at trial that he could not remember signing the checks, and only signed them under duress and influence from a person named Tim Million. He further testified that while he signed them, he did not fill out the remainder of the checks. However, we have held that a defendant's improbable explanation of incriminating circumstances is admissible as proof of guilt. See Paige v. State, 45 Ark. App. 13, 870 S.W.2d 771 (1994). Mr. Vanderberg's explanation was highly improbable, and his assertion that he merely signed the checks is refuted by the fact that each individual check was filled out entirely in the same color ink, including blue, black, and purple. There was substantial evidence to support his conviction for violating the Arkansas Hot Check Law.

Affirmed.

Vaught and Baker, JJ., agree.