Mitchell Steven Wine v. State of Arkansas

2024 Ark. App. 309, 689 S.W.3d 118

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: May 15, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 309 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-23-506

MITCHELL STEVEN WINE Opinion Delivered May 15, 2024 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 63CR-23-122]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CHARLES A. APPELLEE YEARGAN, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Chief Judge

A Saline County jury convicted Mitchell Wine of one count of threatening a judicial

official, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-202 (Supp. 2023), a Class C felony, and one count of

harassing communications, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71-209 (Supp. 2023), a Class A

misdemeanor. Wine represented himself at trial. The jury heard that in November 2022,

Wine was the defendant in a criminal case assigned to Saline County Circuit Judge Brent

Houston. November 2, Judge Houston issued a warrant for Wine’s arrest for violating a

protective order. Around 1:30 the next morning, Judge Houston received two calls to his

home phone. He picked up the first time and no one responded; the second time, he let it

ring.

When Judge Houston arrived at work later that morning, he found two emails in his

official inbox from mitchwine@hotmail.com, an address he had used to correspond with

Wine. The first, sent at 1:20 a.m., read: You want me to come before you, boy? You’re a punk. Nothing more. If you want me incarcerated, why not come get me yourself? Fat-ass punk. Look at your piece of shit ass, boy. ‘I’m a fat ass punk who can’t protect my own ass.’ You lazy piece of shit.

The second, sent four minutes later, continued, “Open your mouth, fat boy. Open that

mouth and see what you get.”

The next day, Judge Houston realized the early-morning caller had left a voicemail:

“Brent Houston, I’m going to come to your house sometime in the very near future. So,

if you don’t want that to happen, you should call me back.” He recognized Wine’s voice.

Wine admitted he sent the emails and left the voicemail.

The State offered other testimony to show Wine was a serial threatener, so to speak.

He warned an attorney for the State Board of Election Commissioners in an email, “[I]f I

suspect you’re committing a felony, I will put my hands on you and place you under citizen’s

arrest. The law requires I use non-lethal force (So long as you don’t fetch for the gun you

state you always carry).” A second email began, “You’re still at [a residential address],

correct?” It was the attorney’s home address.

Wine threatened to make a citizen’s arrest of a director and member of the State

Claims Commission after it denied a claim he had filed. He asserted authority to “pursu[e]

them into their private residences in fresh pursuit . . . [with a] right to use deadly force” if

he felt his life was threatened. The State introduced belligerent text messages Wine sent to

Matt Campbell, an attorney who’d been appointed to represent him in a different case:

“Fight me, boy. . . . I’m about to show up at your house. Soon. In fact, I’m there.”

Campbell called police (and moved to withdraw) after Wine mentioned Campbell’s

daughter in a voicemail.

2 The jury returned a guilty verdict almost instantly.

Wine challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he “threatened to cause physical

injury to a judicial official . . . or any member of a judicial official’s immediate family.” Ark.

Code Ann. § 5-53-202(b)(2)(A). But he did not make that argument below. After the

State rested, Wine stated, “I would like to move for a directed verdict on the felonies that

I have been charged with.” When the court asked whether he wanted to make the motion

outside the jury’s presence, Wine responded, “I’m sorry. Oh, I’ll testify.” He did not

renew that request at the close of his own case.

To preserve a sufficiency-of-evidence challenge, a defendant must specifically state

the grounds for the directed verdict in the circuit court. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(a) & (c).

Wine asked for a directed verdict, but he did not offer the circuit court any reason it should

grant him one. That does not preserve anything for appeal. See, e.g., Radford v. State, 2018

Ark. App. 89, 538 S.W.3d 894.

Affirmed.

VIRDEN and BARRETT, JJ., agree.

The Cannon Law Firm, PLC, by: David R. Cannon, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.