Traylor v. StateTraylor v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Price
Kenneth Traylor, appellant, was convicted of breaking or entering, theft of property and of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sеntenced to a fine of $20,000 and a term of 60 years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal, appellant argues four points for rеversal. We affirm.
John Matlock testified his barn was broken into between October 2 and October 6, 1989, and several items were stolen. The items introduced at trial as stolen from his barn were an air compressor, a mitre saw, a chainsaw and a .410 gauge shotgun. The state crime lab determined that the shackle of the lock on Matlock’s barn had been cut by bolt cutters found in the vehicle that appellant was driving when stopped by a sheriffs deputy on October 13, 1989.
Katherine Shelton, who runs Mattie’s Cafe in Sparkman, testified at trial that appellant came to her cafe in October, 1989, and offered to sell her the items allegеdly taken from Matlock’s barn. Shelton bought the shotgun and loaned money to John Oliver to buy the saws and the compressor.
Appellant had previously been convicted of aggravated robbery and two counts of burglary and theft.
Appellant argues that the state cannot use his prior felony convictions to convict him оf felon in possession of a firearm and then use the same prior felony convictions to enhance the penalty for that conviction.
Although appellant does not explicitly state it, it would appear he is making an argument that his right to be free from double jeopardy is being violated. Appellant
Next, appellant contends that he was prejudiced and received an unfair trial because the state was allowed to amend the information on the day of the trial сharging him under the habitual offender statute,
The record of the lower court’s proceedings shows that appellant was put on notice that the state intended to make an amendment to the information to enhance appellant’s punishment through the habitual offender statute, and that appellant was not surprised when the trial cоurt allowed the information to be amended so as to allow for enhancement of his punishment upon conviction.
Further, appellant stated in a motion filed one day before the trial that he was aware that the state intended to try appellant as a habitual offender. In Mann v. State, 291 Ark. 4, 722 S.W.2d 266 (1987), the state filеd an amended information four days before trial to show that the defendants were habitual offenders. The court ruled that since the defendants’ attorneys had been given a “rap sheet” showing that the defendants were habitual offenders, there was no surprise when the information was amended.
The amended information did not change the nature or degree of the crime, but simply afforded evidence to increase the punishment. Harrison v. State, 287 Ark. 102, 696 S.W.2d 501 (1985); Lincoln v. State, 287 Ark. 16, 696 S.W.2d 316 (1985). Also, appellаnt did not ask for a continuance and did not demonstrate prejudice. We hold the trial court did not err in allowing the state to amend its information, charging appellant as a habitual criminal, on the day of trial.
As to the circumstantial evidence the state offered at trial, the bolt cutters, appellant сontends this was not sufficient evidence to prove he committed the offense of breaking or entering. He argues that there are other possible dеfendants for the offenses he has been convicted of since there were other people present when the stolen items were sold.
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence upon appeal, this court considers the testimony that tends to support the verdict and views the testimony in the light most fаvorable to the appellee. We will affirm the trial court if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. Williams v. State, 289 Ark. 69, 709 S.W.2d 80 (1986).
Substantial evidencе is evidence that is of sufficient force and character that will, with reasonable and material certainty and precision, compel a cоnclusion one way or the other, forcing or inducing the mind to pass beyond a suspicion or conjecture. Holloway v. State, 293 Ark. 438, 738 S.W.2d 796 (1987); Williams v. State, 289 Ark. 443, 711 S.W.2d 825 (1986).
For circumstantial evidenсe to be sufficient, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. Cooper v. State, 275 Ark. 207, 628 S.W.2d 324 (1982). It is for the jury to determine if the evidence excludes every other reasonable hypothesis. Upton v. State, 257 Ark. 424, 516 S.W.2d 904 (1974).
A firearms and tool marks examiner from the state crime lab testified that the bolt сutters found in the vehicle appellant was driving on October 13, 1989, were the same bolt cutters used to cut the lock on the barn where the stolen items were taken. Mattie Shelton testified that appellant came to her cafe the same month of the alleged breaking or entering and theft of propеrty and sold the very items that were stolen from Matlock’s barn. Applying the evidence in the record to
Clearly, there is substantial evidence to suрport the jury verdict as is required in Jones v. State, 269 Ark. 121, 598 S.W.2d 748 (1980).
With respect to the final argument raised by appellant, he contends that he was not allowed to testify bеfore the jury during the sentencing phase of the trial and so he could not controvert and explain the nature of his prior convictions.
Appellant testified outside the hearing of the jury concеrning his previous convictions and presented evidence that his prior convictions were the result of involuntary guilty pleas. The purpose of that prоcedure was to enable the court to determine the number of prior convictions the jury might consider in the sentencing phase. The statute does not provide that the hearing be held before the jury. It provides exactly the opposite.
There was no error and we, therefore, affirm.