Sharpe v. State
This text of 2013 Ark. App. 436 (Sharpe v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 436
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-12-1113
OPINION DELIVERED AUGUST 28, 2013 CHRISTOPHER SHARPE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH DIVISION V. [NO. CR-2011-4198]
HONORABLE BARRY SIMS, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge
Appellant Christopher Sharpe appeals from his conviction by the Pulaski County
Circuit Court on a charge of Class D felony fleeing. Appellant’s sole point on appeal
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Specifically, he argues
that the State failed to introduce substantial evidence that his conduct of fleeing in a vehicle
from the police created a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another
person. We affirm.
On December 6, 2011, the State filed an information against appellant alleging that
he committed, on September 27, 2011, Class D felony fleeing, pursuant to Arkansas Code
Annotated section 5-54-125(a), (d)(2) (Supp. 2011). The information also alleged that
appellant was a habitual offender, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section
5-4-501(b)(1) (Supp. 2011). Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 436
A jury trial was held on August 21, 2012. The State’s proof of appellant’s guilt was
provided primarily through the testimony of North Little Rock Police Officer Chris Brown,
who conducted the actual pursuit of appellant.1 Appellant moved for a directed verdict after
the State rested its case-in-chief, and the trial judge denied the motion without a response
from the State or an explanation. The defense then rested without presenting additional
evidence. The jury found appellant guilty, and he was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to
pay a fine of $5,000 and to serve fifteen years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of
Correction pursuant to a sentencing order filed on August 27, 2012. He filed a timely notice
of appeal on September 24, 2012.
A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Holloway v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 52, at 2. Evidence of a defendant’s guilt is sufficient if the
evidence is substantial. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a
conclusion beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. When reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence, this court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and
considers only evidence that tends to support the guilty verdict. Id.
Appellant contends that Officer Brown’s testimony did not constitute substantial
evidence that his conduct created “a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to
another person” as required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-125(d)(2). Appellant
specifically acknowledges that since 1998 this court has handed down four published cases
1 Officer Yancey Wade Tollett assisted Officer Brown that day, but his testimony detailed the first sighting of appellant and after the chase ended. Officer Tollett did not accompany Officer Brown in the actual pursuit of appellant.
2 Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 436
affirming Class D felony-fleeing convictions that have facts substantially similar to the facts
in this case with regard to the appellant’s having driven a vehicle in a way that created a
substantial danger of death or serious physical injury. See Holloway, supra; Warren v. State,
2010 Ark. App. 226, at 3-4; Pierce v. State, 79 Ark. App. 263, 265–66, 86 S.W.3d 1, 2 (2000);
Weeks v. State, 64 Ark. App. 1, 5, 977 S.W.2d 241, 243 (1998). Appellant requests that we
overrule the Holloway-Weeks line of cases, maintaining that it is impossible to read the facts
of the Holloway-Weeks cases and the facts of this case to determine what conduct constitutes
the creation of a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury, as opposed to what
conduct constitutes the creation of a moderate, or minimal, danger of death or serious
physical injury.
We first note that appellant has abandoned his sufficiency challenge. Initially in his
brief, he contends, as he did at trial, that the evidence was insufficient proof that his
conduct—including speeding and running stop signs at 5:00 p.m. on a Tuesday
afternoon—created a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person.
But he fails to develop that argument, abandoning it instead to focus on this court’s four
published cases with “substantially the same” facts as those found in his case. He asks, for the
first time on appeal, that those cases be overruled on vagueness grounds.
When an appellant fails to make an argument on appeal, it is deemed abandoned. See,
e.g., Stewart v. State, 67 Ark. App. 1, 992 S.W.2d. 147 (1999), rev’d in part on other grounds,
338 Ark. 608, 999 S.W.2d 684 (1999); see also Barton v. State, 96 Ark. App. 23, 237 S.W.3d
512 (2006). Additionally, a party cannot obtain relief by raising an argument for the first time
3 Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 436
on appeal, but is bound by the nature and scope of the arguments made below. Tyler v.
State, 2013 Ark. App. 212, at 2. Even a proposed challenge to the validity of controlling
precedent on appeal must first be raised in the trial court. See State v. Fuson, 355 Ark. 652,
144 S.W.3d 250 (2004).
Moreover, the Arkansas Supreme Court has settled that felony fleeing as defined in
Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-54-125(d)(2) is not unconstitutionally vague, and that
the crime encompasses “speeding and fleeing on a busy” street. Jefferson v. State, 372 Ark.
307, 276 S.W.3d 214 (2008) (rejecting Jefferson’s vagueness challenge that his flight on the
interstate is not encompassed by felony fleeing). Despite appellant’s doubt about this court’s
previous cases, the Arkansas Supreme Court in Jefferson settled the question that conduct
similar to appellant’s “constitutes the creation of a substantial danger of death or serious
physical injury[.]” We cannot overrule Jefferson, which appears to be on point. Selrahc Ltd.
P’ship v. Seeco, Inc., 2009 Ark. App. 865, 374 S.W.3d 33.
Even were the court to reach his sufficiency challenge, this court’s previously
mentioned cases would control. Under our standard of review, the evidence is viewed in
the light most favorable to the State, and Officer Brown’s testimony regarding appellant’s
conduct constitutes substantial evidence to support the conviction on charges of fleeing.
Testimony indicates that during his vehicular flight from police, appellant crossed double-
yellow lines to pass other vehicles stopped at a stoplight, almost hit a car in heavy five o’clock
traffic; he outran the pursuing officer who was traveling seventy to eighty miles per hour to
catch him in a forty-mile-per-hour zone; the officer thought appellant’s vehicle would turn
4 Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 436
over as he cornered quickly near four pedestrians; and appellant thereafter ran three stop
signs.
As in Warren, supra, it is especially significant that appellant ran a stoplight and several
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2013 Ark. App. 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharpe-v-state-arkctapp-2013.