ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DIVISION I

 

CACR03-534

 

JANUARY 28, 2004

DONALD OWENS AN APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [CR02-1106]

 

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE MARION HUMPHREY, JUDGE

APPELLEE

AFFIRMED

Olly Neal, Judge

This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence found to convict appellant, Donald Owens, of battery in the third degree. The court, sitting as trier of fact, sentenced appellant to one year probation and ordered restitution in the amount of $5,486.63. We affirm.

Directed-verdict motions are treated as challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Saulsberry v. State, 81 Ark. App. 419, 102 S.W.3d 907 (2003). When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will affirm the conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Id.

The facts deduced at trial are that on July 1, 2002, Tony Holley and his girlfriend Terry Wooten were in the parking lot of the Discovery Club in Little Rock when appellant, after numerous altercations at the club with Holley's associates, came up behind Holley and "sucker punched" him.

At trial, Wooten testified that:

Additionally, Holley's friend Alan Tarkington testified that as they came out of the club, someone called Holley an "old man" and that appellant started talking "verbally mean." Tarkington testified that Terry Wooten:

Tarkington testified that Holley "somehow [came] out of his shirt and wiggled out of it and said, `let go of me.'" Tarkington stated that at that point, more words were exchanged and everybody in his group decided to leave and started going towards their cars. He testified that:

Appellant asserts on appeal that "[t]he witnesses presented by the State were not credible." However, it is well-settled that the trier of fact is free to believe all or part of any witness's testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. Robinson v. State, 353 Ark. 372, 108 S.W.3d 622 (2003). We do not weigh the evidence presented at trial nor do we weigh the credibility of the witnesses. Polk v. State, 82 Ark. App. 210, 105 S.W.3d 797 (2003). Further, the testimony of one eyewitness alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Winbush v. State,82 Ark. 365, 107 S.W.3d 882 (2003). Here, the trial court obviously believed the State's witnesses and resolved any question of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence in its favor. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Pittman and Vaught, JJ., agree.