ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
DIVISION IV

ZACHERY ROBERTS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 02-1298

October 8, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR 2001-492]

HONORABLE LANCE LAMAR HANSHAW, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Terry Crabtree, Judge

The appellant, Zachery Roberts, was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and theft of property for which he was sentenced to respective terms of twelve and three years in prison, to be served concurrently. Appellant seeks reversal of his convictions on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to show that he was the accomplice to Phillip Hilo in the commission of the offenses. We disagree and affirm.

In Burmingham v. State, 342 Ark. 95, 99, 27 S.W.3d 351, 353-54 (2000), the supreme court set out the standard of review that is applicable here.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Wilson v. State, 332 Ark. 7, 962 S.W.2d 805 (1998). We do notreweigh the evidence but determine instead whether the evidence supporting the verdict is substantial. McFarland v. State, supra. We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Prater v. State, 307 Ark. 180, 820 S.W.2d 429 (1991). Evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, is sufficient to support a conviction if it is forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion without having to resort to speculation or conjecture. Id. We do not, however, weigh the evidence presented at trial, as that is a matter for the factfinder. Wilson, supra. Nor will we weigh the credibility of the witnesses.

Additionally, circumstantial evidence is substantial when it excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, and whether it does is a question for the jury. Williams v. State, 351 Ark. 215, 91 S.W.3d 54 (2002).

A person commits aggravated robbery if he commits robbery and is armed with a deadly weapon. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-130(a)(1) (Repl. 1997). A person commits the offense of robbery if, with the purpose of committing theft, he employs or threatens to immediately employ physical force upon another. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-102(a) (Repl. 1997). A person commits theft of property if he knowingly takes or exercises unauthorized control over the property of another person with the purpose of depriving the owner thereof. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-103(a)(1) (Supp. 2001).

Paula Shaffer was working at the Cabot Super Stop at 2:30 a.m. on December 16, 2001, when she was robbed at gunpoint by two white males. Six hundred dollars was taken from the store's cash registers. Shaffer, and witnesses Toni Fryar and Casey Harrod, provided the police with a description of the get-away car as a dark-colored, older-model, foreign car that was either a Toyota or Nissan.

Officer Rick Stone proceeded to the area and met a car that matched the description. When he turned around to follow, the car immediately turned onto a side street and pulled into the driveway at 171 Pine Terrace. Stone activated his blue lights and the car drove through the yard and stopped in the yard at 131 Pine Terrace. He testified that the driver of the car jumped out and began to run. Stone apprehended the man, Phillip Hilo, after a foot-chase. When Stone returned to his patrol car with Hilo, he noticed that the suspect-vehicle was no longer there. He had thought that the car had become stuck because it was raining. James Edmonson, who lived at 131 Pine Terrace, was awakened by the commotion in his yard. He saw the vehicle being driven down the street where it pulled into another driveway. Edmonson directed Stone to the vehicle's location. It was later determined that the vehicle, a black Nissan Sentra, belonged to appellant's mother. The next day, Mr. Edmonson found a gun lying beside the ruts that had been made in his yard.

Ms. Shaffer identified Hilo as one of the robbers. She was unable to identify appellant as Hilo's accomplice.

Officer Larry Thompson was en route to the area at the time Officer Stone was in pursuit of Hilo. When Thompson reached the vicinity of Officer Stone, he saw a white male wearing white pants and no shirt running down the street. He ordered the man to stop, but the man continued to run into a yard where he jumped a fence and ran into the backyard of a house. Thompson searched the yard and a thick, wooded area that was behind the house, but he was not able to locate the person who had fled because it was dark and raining.

Brittany Roland, Hilo's girlfriend at the time, testified that she had been with Hilo, the appellant, and appellant's girlfriend, Nicole Konarski, that evening at a motel in Jacksonville. She said that Hilo and appellant were whispering about something in the room and that the two of them left in the black Nissan Sentra at around 11:00 p.m. Appellant and Hilo did not return to the motel that night, and Ms. Roland and Konarski stayed in the room alone. Early the next morning, Roland and Konarski went to use a phone to try to locate them. When they returned to the motel, appellant was standing at the door of the room. Roland testified that appellant was wearing the white pants he had worn the night before and that he was soaking wet and had blood on him. Roland said that appellant told them that he and Hilo had robbed a convenience store in Cabot and that he had been hiding from the police in the woods. He showed them scratches that were on his stomach, arms and back that he had acquired during his elopement in some woods.

Appellant was arrested at the motel room at around 7:00 a.m. by Officer John Dodd. Dodd found a wet pair of white pants in the room. He saw scrapes and abrasions on appellant's body. Officer Scott Steely conducted an inventory of the Nissan Sentra. He recovered $370 in cash and a black sweatshirt. He recognized the sweatshirt as the one worn by one of the perpetrators as captured by the store's security camera.

Phillip Hilo testified that he and appellant left the motel room and picked up a friend of his named Clint, whose last name he did not know. He said they had planned to rob a dope dealer in Little Rock but that appellant did not want to do it, so they went to a party instead. He said that he and Clint left the party and robbed the convenience store. He admitted that he had initially told the police that appellant was his accomplice, but he said that he did so out of loyalty to his friend Clint and because he was mad at the appellant for not wanting to rob the drug dealer.

Appellant testified that he lost track of Hilo and Clint at the party and that he had gotten into a fight with several people who were there. When he ran out of the house, his car was gone, so he left the party on foot. Appellant said that he walked down the road and knocked on the door of a house and asked to use the phone. He stated that he called his step-father, who agreed to come get him and take him back to the motel. He denied that he told Ms. Roland that he had robbed a convenience store.

Appellant argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that he assisted Hilo in the commission of the offenses. We disagree. When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it shows that appellant admitted to Brittany Roland that he and Hilo robbed a convenience store in Cabot and that he had hidden in the woods where his body had been scratched and cut. When appellant was arrested, the officer observed cuts on appellant's body and a pair of wet white pants was found in the motel room, which Ms. Roland stated appellant had been wearing the night before. Officer Thompson had seen a man wearing white pants running down the street in the area where the get-away car had stopped. This man fled from Officer Thompson, who chased him into a wooded area. And, the get-away car belonged to appellant's mother. Although appellant relies on testimony that supports his version of events and he argues that Ms. Roland's testimony lacks credibility, these were matters for the jury to consider and weigh, and we cannot say that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict.

Affirmed.

Vaught and Baker, JJ., agree.