Keon M. Chaffin v. State of Arkansas , 2023 Ark. App. 130 ( 2023 )

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 130ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-22-273
KEON M. CHAFFIN OPINION DELIVERED MARCH 8, 2023
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE DESHA
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 21ACR-21-7]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE ROBERT B. GIBSON
APPELLEE III, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge
Keon Chaffin appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for possession of
marijuana with purpose to deliver, simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, possession
of drug paraphernalia, fleeing, and possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a term of
ten years in the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) for simultaneous possession of
drugs and a firearm and to fines on the remaining charges. Chaffin argues on appeal that
the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Because the appellant did
not preserve these arguments for appeal, we affirm.
I. Background Facts
On November 9, 2020, the appellant was stopped by Officers Eric Armstrong and
Allen Hernandez of the Dumas Police Department because his vehicle’s headlights were off.
Theodore Mitchell was a passenger in the vehicle when appellant was stopped by the police.
Testimony provided that when Officer Armstrong spoke with the appellant, he detected the
odor of marijuana, and after running his license, he asked Chaffin if there was anything in
the truck. As they were speaking, the appellant drove away, and a chase ensued. Eventually,
appellant stopped the vehicle and fled on foot. The police chased him into a residence where
he was placed under arrest. The officers then searched the vehicle Chaffin was driving and
discovered a black bag with marijuana and a handgun, along with scales and baggies.
Additionally, approximately $2,500 in cash was recovered from appellant’s sock.
At the close of the State’s evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict arguing
that the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove he possessed marijuana and/or
the firearm. Specifically, appellant’s counsel argued there was insufficient proof that Chaffin
knew a firearm was in the vehicle, and furthermore, the evidence presented merely showed
that the marijuana was for personal use only; thus, there was no intent to deliver. The
motion was denied by the court. For the defense, the appellant took the stand and then
called two other witnesses to testify. The State then recalled Officer Armstrong as a rebuttal
witness. Appellant did not renew his motion for directed verdict at the close of all the
evidence.
The jury returned guilty verdicts on all five charges, and Chaffin was sentenced to ten
years in the ADC for possession of drugs and a firearm and assessed a $500 fine on the
remaining charges. This appeal followed.
II. Points on Appeal
2
Chaffin argues on appeal that the evidence at trial was (1) insufficient to support his
conviction for possession of drugs with purpose to deliver; (2) insufficient to support his
conviction for possession of a firearm; and (3) insufficient to support his conviction of
simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm. Therefore, appellant argues that his
convictions should be vacated.
III. Discussion
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must be made by a directed-verdict
motion. This court has consistently held that Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1
requires that an appellant move for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s evidence and
again at the close of all of the evidence and that the failure to do so waives a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 2009 Ark. 478, 348 S.W.3d
553; Flowers v. State, 362 Ark. 193, 202, 208 S.W.3d 113, 121 (2005); Romes v. State, 356
Ark. 26, 144 S.W.3d 750 (2004); Doss v. State, 351 Ark. 667, 97 S.W.3d 413 (2003); Pyle v.
State, 340 Ark. 53, 8 S.W.3d 491 (2000). An appellant who does not renew a directed-verdict
motion at the close of trial fails to preserve the issue for appeal. Henry v. State, 309 Ark. 1,
828 S.W.2d 346 (1992).
At trial, appellant moved for directed verdict at the end of the State’s case; however,
he did not renew his motion at the close of all the evidence. Pursuant to Rule 33.1, therefore,
Chaffin waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s
convictions. Thus, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
3
HARRISON, C.J, and KLAPPENBACH, J., agree.
James Law Firm, by: William O. “Bill” James, Jr., for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Clayton P. Orr, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4