Hinton v. State, 2015 Ark. 479

On Sept. 22, 2014, a Pulaski County jury convicted James E. Hinton III of aggravated robbery, Class B felony theft of property (obtained by threat of serious physical injury), and possession of a defaced firearm; sentences ran concurrently and each conviction received a five-year firearm enhancement under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-120, for a total of 15 years.
Facts: Hinton and an accomplice arranged to buy a laptop; the accomplice grabbed the laptop and ran, Hinton pushed the seller, took the laptop, and was seen holding a pistol; police apprehended Hinton and recovered the laptop and a firearm with the serial number scratched off.
Key testimony: witness Christopher Dunbar testified Hinton pointed the gun at him twice—both before and after the laptop was obtained—and followed/pursued Hinton while on the phone with campus security.
Procedural posture: Hinton appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of evidence as to theft-by-threat (directed-verdict challenge) and (2) that the firearm-enhancement statute cannot apply to felonies that necessarily involve firearm possession; the Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed both the sufficiency of evidence for Class B theft-by-threat and the application of the firearm enhancement to the possession-of-a-defaced-firearm conviction; separate opinions concurred/dissented in part.

Issue	Hinton's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was there substantial evidence that Hinton "obtained" the laptop by threat of serious physical injury?	Evidence was insufficient because the accomplice first grabbed the laptop and the gun-pointing occurred after the laptop was taken.	Dunbar’s testimony that Hinton pointed the gun at him before and after the taking shows Hinton brought about the transfer by threat; theft can be viewed as encompassing that conduct.	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, Dunbar’s testimony that Hinton pointed a gun supports that Hinton obtained the laptop by threat.
Legality of firearm enhancement: May Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-120 enhance a sentence for an offense that necessarily involves possession of a firearm?	The enhancement is illegal because one cannot "employ" a firearm as a means of committing the separate offense of possessing that same firearm.	The statute applies to "any ... felony" committed with a firearm; prior case law does not create a bar for offenses that require firearm possession.	Affirmed: The plain language covers any felony committed with a firearm; McKeever did not create an exception for offenses that require possession.

McKeever v. State, 367 Ark. 374 (explaining scope of § 16-90-120 and rejecting single-incident-limit argument)
Welch v. State, 269 Ark. 208 (holding separate crimes committed with a firearm may each be enhanced)
Hall v. State, 299 Ark. 209 (discussing continuing-offense doctrine in the context of theft-by-receiving)
Crawford v. State, 309 Ark. 54 (substantial-evidence standard applied to theft convictions)
Thompson v. State, 2014 Ark. 413 (statutory-construction principles; construe statutes as written)
Turner v. State, 2014 Ark. 415 (clarifying substantial-evidence review on directed-verdict challenges)