Keith W. CROZIER, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee
No. CR-16-37
Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION II.
Opinion Delivered: June 8, 2016
2016 Ark. App. 307
Leslie Rutledge, Att‘y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass‘t Att‘y Gen., for appellee.
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
On July 12, 2011, Sean Cree‘s Dodge truck was stolen from Texarkana, Arkansas. Nearly three years later, on April 29, 2014, Officer Jimmy Bennett and Chief Deputy David Huffmaster lоcated the truck in Crozier‘s shed. After finding the truck, Bennett and Huffmaster obtained a warrant to search Crozier‘s house, and they discovered drug paraphernalia. On May 2, 2014, the State chargеd Crozier with theft by receiving in violation of
On June 25, 2014, Crozier filed a motion to suppress the truck and the drug paraphernаlia. He asserted that even though Bennett and Huffmaster had a warrant to search his house, the warrant was defective because he did not voluntarily consent to the search of his shed.
On October 1, 2014, the court held a hearing on Crozier‘s motion. At the hearing, Bennett testified that he received information that Crozier had a stolen Dodge truck in his shed. He explained that upоn receiving that information, he went to Crozier‘s house with Huffmaster and asked Crozier if he had a Dodge truck. Crozier informed them that he had a truck in his shed. Bennett testified that he then asked Crozier if thеy could examine the truck in the shed and specifically explained that he could refuse the search. Bennett stated that Crozier consented to the search and opened the shed for them. Bennett testified that he identified the truck in Crozier‘s shed as Cree‘s vehicle from the VIN number. He explained that he then obtained a search warrant for Crozier‘s house and rеturned to the property two days later to tow the truck and search the house. He testified that while searching the house, he found drug paraphernalia. Huffmaster also testified at the hearing that Crozier gave Bennett permission to enter the shed and that Bennett informed Crozier that he did not have to consent to
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Crоzier consented to the search of the shed and denied Crozier‘s motion to suppress the Dodge truck. However, the court found that the search warrant lacked probable сause and granted Crozier‘s motion to suppress the drug paraphernalia found in the house. The State proceeded with the charge of theft by receiving, and the court held a jury trial on October 21, 2015.
At trial, Cree testified that his Dodge truck was stolen on July 12, 2011. He testified that officials informed him that they found his truck and that he inspected the vehicle that they found. He confirmed that thе Dodge truck found in Crozier‘s shed was his vehicle.
Bennett recounted his testimony from the earlier suppression hearing and testified that he discovered a Dodge truck in Crozier‘s shed on April 29, 2014. He furthеr testified that the shed was packed full of items and that the truck had been dismantled. Specifically, he stated that the truck‘s dashboard, door panels, and fuel tank had been removed but the parts remained in the shed. He noted that the truck‘s radio and speakers had also been dismantled but they were not in the shed. He further noted that the license plate had been remоved. He testified that he initially had trouble finding the VIN number because a black piece of plastic concealed the number, but he removed the plastic and identified the number. He stated that he called a dispatcher to verify whether the number matched the VIN number for the stolen truck, and while he waited for her response, he questioned Crozier about the truck. He tеstified that Crozier told him that he was hiding the truck for a friend who was getting a divorce but Crozier did not tell him the friend‘s name.
Huffmaster also testified at the hearing that they found the Dodge truck in Crozier‘s shed and thаt the truck had been dismantled. He noted that the inner door panels and the dash had been removed. He explained that the shed also contained numerous stacks of boxes and clothes.
After the State rested, Crozier moved for a directed verdict. He argued that the State was not entitled to the presumption of theft by receiving under
Crozier did not present any evidence, and the jury convicted him of thеft by receiving and sentenced him to seventy-two months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. He then filed this timely appeal. On appeal, Crozier argues that the cirсuit court erred when it (1) denied his motion to suppress and (2) denied his motion for a directed verdict.
Because of double-jeopardy concerns, we consider challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence before addressing other arguments. Gillean v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 698, 478 S.W.3d 255. A motion for a directed verdict is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Woodson v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 602, 374 S.W.3d 1. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, we consider only the evidence that supports the verdict, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. LeFever v. State, 91 Ark. App. 86, 208 S.W.3d 812 (2005). The test is whether there is substantial evidence to
A person commits theft by receiving when he receives, retains, or disposes of stolen property of another person, knowing it was stolen or having good reason to believe it was stolen.
In this case, Crozier argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the State was not entitled to the presumption from
Crozier‘s argument is misplaced. The State conceded at trial that the presumption from
Crozier next argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion tо suppress the Dodge truck because Bennett did not inform him that he could refuse the search. In making his argument, he cites
When rеviewing a circuit court‘s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, the appellate court conducts a de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical facts for clear error and determining whether those facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, giving due weight to the inferenсes drawn by the circuit court. Pickering v. State, 2012 Ark. 280, 412 S.W.3d 143. A finding is clearly erroneous, even if there is evidence to support it, when the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. We defer to the circuit court‘s superior position in determining the credibility of the witnesses
Here, we need not determine whether
Affirmed.
Glover and Hixson, JJ., agree.