Milton Thomas v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 200

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: March 18, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 200 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-19-588

Opinion Delivered: March 18, 2020

MILTON THOMAS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 63CR-18-648]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE GRISHAM PHILLIPS, APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Milton Thomas appeals his conviction by a Saline County Circuit Court jury of

felony fleeing, for which he was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Appellant

argues that the circuit court erred in denying his directed-verdict motion because the State

failed to prove that appellant (1) was driving the vehicle, (2) knew that his immediate

detention was being attempted, or (3) manifested extreme indifference to human life. We

affirm.

Appellant’s jury trial took place on January 16, 2019. Testimony showed that

appellant fled from a traffic stop in Bryant, Arkansas, the night of June 14, 2018, after

being stopped by Officer Shawn Johnson for a broken headlight. A pursuit ensued onto I- 30 with speeds reaching 130 m.p.h. before appellant took the Baseline Road exit and

subsequently blew out a tire. Appellant eventually turned down a service road driving

against traffic. The pursuit was called off due to safety concerns. Appellant’s unoccupied

vehicle was spotted a short time later in the middle of the parking lot of a nearby hotel.

The vehicle’s engine was still running, and the driver’s door was open. A search of the

vehicle turned up a letter addressed to appellant. Officer Johnson was able to pull up

appellant’s driver’s license by running the name found on the letter. He concluded that

the person he was looking for was appellant. Appellant was finally located in room 216

and arrested. At the conclusion of the State’s case, appellant moved for a directed verdict

stating, “Judge, the defense will move for a directed verdict. The State has not provided

enough evidence to prove their case.” The court denied the motion.

Trial proceeded with the defense presenting its case. After the defense rested, the

court stated that it would “show [appellant’s] motion is renewed word for word as

previously stated and denied.” The State subsequently presented rebuttal testimony, and

afterwards, the court again stated it would “consider [appellant’s] motion is renewed word

for word and denied.” The jury convicted appellant of fleeing and sentenced him as a

habitual offender to fifteen years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The

sentencing order was filed on January 23. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on

January 24.

2 A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. 1 A

motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor. 2 The failure of a

defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at the times and in the manner

required will constitute a waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the

evidence to support the verdict or judgment.3 A motion for directed verdict or for

dismissal based on insufficiency of the evidence must specify the respect in which the

evidence is deficient.4 A motion merely stating that the evidence is insufficient does not

preserve for appeal issues relating to a specific deficiency, such as insufficient proof on the

elements of the offense.5 Failure to make the motions for directed verdict with specificity

regarding the sufficiency issue on appeal equates to the motion never having been made.6

Appellant’s directed-verdict motion was not specific regarding which elements of

fleeing the State’s evidence failed to meet. He simply argued that the State had not

provided enough evidence to prove its case. Thus, we hold that appellant’s sufficiency

challenge is not preserved for appeal.

Affirmed.

1 Thompson v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 391. 2 Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(a). 3 Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c).

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 Jordan v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 255, 492 S.W.3d 543.

3 KLAPPENBACH and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.

Jones Law Firm, by: Parker Jones and John A. Butler, for appellant.

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