Anthony Darnell Warren v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 263, 600 S.W.3d 123

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: April 22, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 263 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS document Date: 2021-07-06 14:14:03 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION IV 9.7.5 No. CR-19-794

Opinion Delivered: April 22, 2020

ANTHONY DARNELL WARREN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE NEVADA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 50CR-18-159]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE RANDY WRIGHT, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

Anthony Darnell Warren was convicted by a jury in the Nevada County Circuit

Court of three counts of rape and three counts of sexual assault in the second degree. Warren

was sentenced to an aggregate term of sixty years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department

of Correction. Warren appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his

convictions. We affirm.

In a felony information filed May 16, 2019, Warren was charged with three counts

of the rape of a minor child under the age of fourteen and three counts of sexual assault of

a minor child while in a position of trust or authority over the minor. According to the

information, the crimes took place on or about December 31, 2012, through February 15,

2015, and were committed against the same minor victim. The evidence at trial established that Warren lived with the now fourteen-year-old

victim and the victim’s mother, Brittney Gulley, until the victim and her mother moved

out in 2015. Gulley and Warren also have a son who is now ten years old. Dana Tuggle,

the victim’s school counselor, testified that she reached out to the victim when the victim’s

teacher notified her that the victim seemed sad. She testified that the victim opened up

about being sexually abused and that she then reported the victim’s abuse to Chris Collins

an investigator with the Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division. Collins

testified that he conducted an initial interview and when he verified the allegations in

Tuggle’s report he scheduled a forensic interview at the child advocacy center. Based on the

forensic interview, Warren was arrested.

At trial, the victim identified Warren as her abuser and testified in detail about

multiple sexual encounters with him. She testified that the abuse occurred while she was

living with Warren in Prescott, and she was eight or nine years old. She said the abuse

would happen when her mother and brother were not around. The victim testified that

Warren would coach her on what to say if someone ever asked her about the inappropriate

behavior. She said she considered Warren to be like a father. The victim testified she did

not confide in someone sooner because she was concerned about how her brother would

react when confronted with his father’s behavior.

Following the victim’s testimony, the State rested, and Warren moved for a directed

verdict, which the circuit court denied. The defense then presented its case.

Recordo Walker, Warren’s friend and neighbor, testified that he would typically be

at Warren’s house while Gulley was at work. He said that Warren never showed any interest

2 in young girls, and he never saw Warren make any advances toward the victim. Warren

testified in his defense discounting the allegations.

At the conclusion of Warren’s testimony, he renewed his motion for directed verdict,

which the circuit court again denied. After the jury deliberated, they returned with a guilty

verdict on all six counts and sentenced him to an aggregate term of sixty years’ imprisonment

in the Arkansas Department of Correction. This appeal followed.

Motions for directed verdict are treated as challenges to the sufficiency of the

evidence. Swaim v. State, 78 Ark. App. 176, 79 S.W.3d 853 (2002). When reviewing the

denial of a directed-verdict motion, the appellate court will look at the evidence in the light

most favorable to the State, considering only the evidence that supports the judgment or

verdict and will affirm if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Id. Substantial

evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable

certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Jenkins v.

State, 2020 Ark. App. 45, 593 S.W.3d 51. Evidence is sufficient to support a verdict if it is

forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other. Swaim, 78 Ark. App. 176,

79 S.W.3d 853.

On appeal, Warren argues that the State failed to produce sufficient proof to sustain

the rape and sexual assault convictions because the victim was the only witness who testified

with actual knowledge of the sexual contact and her testimony was so contradictory and

inconsistent that a reasonable factfinder could not have credited it.

A person commits rape if he or she engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual

activity with another person who is less than fourteen years of age. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-

3 103(a)(3)(A) (Supp. 2019). “Deviate sexual activity” means any act of sexual gratification

involving the penetration, however slight, of the anus or mouth of a person by the penis of

another person, or the penetration, however slight, of the labia majora or anus of a person

by any body member or foreign instrument manipulated by another person. Ark. Code

Ann. § 5-14-101(1)(A)(B) (Supp. 2019). A person commits sexual assault in the second

degree if the person engages in sexual contact with a minor and the actor is a temporary

caretaker, or a person in a position of trust or authority over the minor. Ark. Code Ann.

§ 5-14-125(a)(4)(A)(iv) (Supp. 2019). “Sexual contact” means any act of sexual gratification

involving the touching, directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, buttocks, or anus of

a person or the breast of a female. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(11).

Based on these statutes, and when viewing the light most favorable to the verdict,

substantial evidence supports Warren’s convictions. The victim testified that she viewed

Warren like a father and that he would take care of her while her mother was at work. She

also testified in detail about numerous sexual encounters with Warren that involved

descriptions of both deviate sexual activity and sexual contact. While there are no

independent eyewitnesses and no physical evidence, the uncorroborated testimony of a rape

victim is sufficient to support a conviction of rape. Brown v. State, 374 Ark. 341, 343, 288

S.W.3d 226, 228–29 (2008). Additionally, the victim’s testimony alone, describing the

sexual contact, is enough for a sexual-assault conviction. Worrall v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 1,

at 5–6, 593 S.W.3d 491, 494–95. Thus, here, the victim’s testimony alone was substantial

evidence supporting Warren’s convictions.

4 Warren essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence by directing us to inconsistencies

in the victim’s testimony. It is well established that we will not reweigh the evidence on

appeal. Hamrick v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 298, at 4, 577 S.W.3d 734, 737. The trier of fact

is free to believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of

conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. Id. We will disregard testimony that the

fact-finder has found credible only if it is so inherently improbable, physically impossible,

or so clearly unbelievable that reasonable minds could not differ about it. Hillman v. State,

2019 Ark. App. 89, at 5–6, 569 S.W.3d 372, 375–76. Such is not the case here. For this

reason, we affirm.

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

Terrence Cain, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael L. Yarbrough, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.