Turner v. State
2012 Ark. App. 150
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Turner was convicted by Garland County Circuit Court of multiple felonies, including theft by receiving a credit/debit card, theft by receiving property over $2,500, second-degree forgery, obstruction of governmental operations, and attempted theft of property under $500, and sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 years.
- Turner challenges only two convictions on appeal: theft by receiving regarding a vehicle and second-degree forgery, and whether sentences run consecutively.
- Evidence showed Barden’s purse and vehicle stolen on Aug. 22–28, 2009; Turner’s possession of Barden’s vehicle and items linked to Barden; a wheel vehicle found with Turner’s alleged identifiers; Turner testified she used others’ cards/checks.
- The State introduced identity and possession evidence (wallet, driver’s license, credit cards) connecting Turner to Barden’s stolen property, plus witnesses who placed Turner with Barden’s vehicle and attempts to use a forged check.
- Turner’s custodial history and prior felonies were noted for habitual-offender sentencing; the trial court imposed consecutive terms within statutory limits.
- The defense highlighted lack of direct evidence of Turner’s personal involvement in the theft of Barden’s vehicle and challenged forgery intent; the State argued constructive possession and intent supported theft by receiving and forgery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft by receiving | Turner lacked actual possession of Barden’s vehicle | Turner did not participate in theft or know vehicle was stolen | Substantial evidence supported possession and knowledge of theft |
| Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree forgery | Turner uttered a check and intended to defraud | No signed/check filled out, cannot be forged | Substantial evidence supported forgery; uttering sufficed |
| Consecutive-sentencing discretion | Consecutive terms violate statute; should be concurrent | Trial court has discretion to order consecutive sentences | Trial court did not abuse discretion; thirty-year aggregate term within statutory limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Zones v. State, 287 Ark. 483, 702 S.W.2d 1 (1985) (credibility and inference in evaluating testimony)
- Wilson v. State, 10 Ark.App. 176, 662 S.W.2d 204 (1983) (unexplained possession supports conviction for receiving)
- Ruffin v. State, 83 Ark.App. 44, 115 S.W.3d 814 (2003) (availability of intent and completion of forgery evidence)
- McGirt v. State, 289 Ark. 7, 708 S.W.2d 620 (1986) (intent may be inferred from conduct; completion of forgery shown by uttering)
- Williams v. State, 320 Ark. 498, 898 S.W.2d 38 (1995) (appellate review of sentencing within statutory limits)