ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
October 2, 2003

BOBBY L. GREEN

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 02-1243

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 2002-25, HONORABLE DAVID BOGARD, JUDGE; PRO SE MOTION TO DELAY APPEAL

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DELAY APPEAL DENIED

Per Curiam

Appellant was convicted of stalking in the first degree and sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment. Appellant's counsel has filed a motion to be relieved and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1), asserting that the appeal is wholly without merit. Because appellant has not filed points for reversal in this matter, the State cites Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(3) as grounds for its decision not to file an appellee's brief.

Motion to Delay Appeal

Before we address counsel's brief, we have before us appellant's motion to delay appeal. In his motion, appellant claims that he is entitled to a lesser sentence and lists several claims in support of his motion. However, appellant's desire for a reduction in sentence is not good cause to stay this appeal. Any arguments that appellant wished to raise in this appeal could, and should, have been raised in his points for reversal. Appellant did not file points for reversal when given the opportunity to do so, and he cannot use a motion to stay the appeal as a substitute. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

The first adverse ruling is the denial of trial counsel's motion for directed verdict. At the close of the State's case, counsel made a motion for directed verdict based upon the State's failure to prove the deadly weapon element of the stalking statute. The motion was denied.

We treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and consider such a challenge prior to the review of any other claims of trial error. See Dodson v. State, 341 Ark. 41, 46, 14 S.W.3d 489, 492 (2000). "The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial." Smith v. State, 346 Ark. 48, 52, 55 S.W.3d 251, 254 (2001). Substantial evidence is that which is forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, and only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Id.

The victim testified that during one of her encounters with appellant, he gestured to her with a knife, made a slashing motion across his throat, and threatened to kill her. She testified that the knife was a steak or kitchen knife that was six to eight inches in length. According to Ark. Code Ann. §5-1-102(4) (Repl. 1997):

(4) "Deadly weapon" means:

(A) A firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious physical injury; or

(B) Anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of

causing death or serious physical injury ....

A knife most certainly qualifies as a "deadly weapon" for purposes of the statute. Moreover, the credibility of the witness and the weight to be accorded her testimony are for the trier of fact, and such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal when there is substantial evidence to support the factfinder's conclusion. See Jenkins v. State, 60 Ark. App. 122, 125-126, 959 S.W.2d 427, 428 (1998). Here, the trier of fact accepted the victim's testimony that appellant brandished a knife; therefore, we find the victim's testimony sufficient to support appellant's conviction and affirm.

Appellant's Petition for Reduction of Sentence

The second adverse ruling is the trial court's dismissal of appellant's petition for reduction of sentence. Following the trial, appellant filed a pro se petition for reduction of sentence pursuant to § 16-90-111, which was dismissed. We find no error and affirm.

In denying the petition, the trial court found that appellant appeared to be making an evidentiary challenge to the testimony at trial and that such a "challenge to the credibility of testimony or sufficiency of the evidence is a direct, not a collateral, attack on Petitioner's conviction, which must be made at trial or on direct appeal." We agree with the trial court that appellant's challenge to the sentence imposed against him was an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence, which is not cognizable under § 16-90-111. See Guire v. State, 309 Ark. 209, 210, 832 S.W.2d 457, 457 (1992). We therefore affirm the trial court's ruling on this point..

Affirmed and motion denied.

Thornton, J., not participating.