Davis v. State
430 S.W.3d 190
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Two armed robberies of gas stations in Blytheville on Oct. 18, 2011 (about 10:00 PM and ~11:00 PM); robber wore black clothes and a white rag over his face and pointed a small revolver.
- Sgt. Lively responded, drove toward second scene, and observed Quintrell Richardson’s car about a half-mile from the second robbery shortly after it occurred.
- Lively knew Richardson had been previously arrested for carrying a firearm and had seen the same car near another recent robbery (identified by color and unique rims). He ran the plates and stopped the vehicle.
- Three men were in the car (driver Richardson; front-seat passenger Dameon Davis; a rear passenger). Officers found about $563 in small bills (some paper-clipped) scattered on the floor and on the occupants; Davis had $139 on his person and gave a false name. Clothing matching witness descriptions (black hat, black pants/shoes, black hoodie) was recovered from the car.
- A jury convicted Davis of two counts of aggravated robbery; the court denied Davis’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence from the stop and later revoked his probation for a prior aggravated-assault conviction based on the robbery. Sentence: concurrent terms (10 years robbery; 6 years revocation).
Issues
| Issue | Davis's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery/accomplice liability | Evidence insufficient to prove Davis was a principal or accomplice | Presence in car leaving scene, money matching stolen denominations and paper clips, matching clothing, false name, and shared proceeds support accomplice inference | Affirmed: substantial circumstantial evidence supports conviction |
| Lawfulness of traffic stop / motion to suppress | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Richardson’s car | Officer had articulable facts (proximity to recent robbery, recognized car and driver history, late hour) creating reasonable suspicion | Affirmed: stop was justified under totality of circumstances |
| Standard and review of suppression ruling | N/A (challenge to factual sufficiency of suspicion) | De novo review of legal question; defer to factual findings unless clearly erroneous | Circuit court denial of suppression not clearly against preponderance of evidence |
| Probation revocation based on robbery conviction | Court failed to specify which probation condition was violated | Revocation premised on commission of a criminal offense (aggravated robbery) violates condition prohibiting committing crimes punishable by imprisonment | Affirmed: State met preponderance standard for revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Baughman v. State, 353 Ark. 1 (discussing standard for directed verdict and sufficiency review)
- Dunn v. State, 371 Ark. 140 (circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence)
- Tillman v. State, 271 Ark. 552 (officer knowledge of defendant’s past and vehicle near crime scene justified probable cause)
- Yarbrough v. State, 370 Ark. 31 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Bradley v. State, 347 Ark. 518 (State’s burden in probation-revocation proceedings is by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Laime v. State, 347 Ark. 142 (reasonable suspicion can be established by facts insufficient for probable cause)
- Austin v. State, 26 Ark. App. 70 (using false name after a crime tends to indicate guilt)