Case Title: Whitney v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-577

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-10-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Donnie WHITNEY v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-577                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered October 7, 1996


1.   Motions -- directed verdict -- general motion does not
     preserve sufficiency-of-evidence issue for appeal. -- A
     general directed-verdict motion stating only that the evidence
     is insufficient does not preserve a sufficiency-of-the-
     evidence issue for appeal.

2.   Trial -- reversible error -- timely objection required. -- For
     an allegation of error to be sustained as the result of a
     trial error, there must have been a timely and accurate
     objection.

3.   Appeal & error -- ineffective-assistance-of-counsel issue not
     considered by trial court -- cannot be raised on direct
     appeal. -- The supreme court, noting that appellant would be
     free to move for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim.
     Pro. 37 after resolution of his direct appeal, held that he
     could not raise his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument
     on direct appeal because it was not an issue considered by the
     trial court.

4.   Appeal & error -- no objection to sentence made before trial
     court -- issue not considered. -- Where appellant urged that
     his sentence was so cruel and unusual as to be in violation of
     the Arkansas Constitution, the supreme court noted that the
     sentence was within the statutory limits and declined to
     consider the issue further because no objection to the
     sentence was made before the trial court.

5.   Trial -- penalty phase -- trial court did not err in
     sustaining objection to testimony that had no bearing upon
     sentence. -- Where appellant argued that the trial court
     improperly limited the testimony of a penalty-phase witness,
     the supreme court held that the trial court did not err in
     sustaining the State's objection to testimony that had no
     bearing upon the sentence to be received by appellant.


     Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court; Philip Purifoy, Circuit
Judge; affirmed.
     Honey & Honey, P.A., for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Brad Newman, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     David Newbern, Justice.

     Donnie Whitney, the appellant, was charged by information in
Lafayette Circuit Court as an habitual offender with three counts
of Delivery of a Controlled Substance (i.e., cocaine).  Ark. Code
Ann.  5-64-401(a) (Supp. 1995).  He was tried, and convicted, on
Count I of the information and sentenced to a prison term of eighty
years and a fine of $50,000.  Ark. Code Ann.  5-64-401(a)(1)(i)
(Supp. 1995) and 5-64-408(a)(Repl. 1993).  
     Mr. Whitney maintains his conviction should be reversed
because (i) the prosecutor, during the closing argument at the
penalty phase of trial, commented on Mr. Whitney's failure to
testify during the guilt-innocence phase; (ii) the prosecutor made
other improper remarks during the closing argument at the guilt-
innocence phase; (iii) the sentence is excessive; and (iv) the
evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.  We affirm the
conviction and sentence on those points as none of them has been
preserved for appeal.  We also reject Mr. Whitney's argument that
the Trial Court improperly limited the testimony of mitigation
witnesses presented by Mr. Whitney in the sentencing phase of the
trial.

                 1. Sufficiency of the evidence
     Testimony revealed that an undercover state police officer and
an informant were approached by Mr. Whitney as they sat in a
vehicle and that they purchased cocaine from Mr. Whitney for $1000. 
At the close of the State's case, counsel moved for a directed
verdict, stating only that the evidence was "not sufficient ... to
sustain a conviction of a violation of a controlled substance,
namely cocaine."  After the defense rested, the motion was renewed,
using the same general terminology.  A general directed-verdict
motion stating only that the evidence is insufficient does not
preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue for appeal.  Ark. R.
Crim. P. 33.1;  Monk v. State, 320 Ark. 189,