Case Title: Ricks v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-973

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Bryan Keith RICKS v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-973                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered March 10, 1997


1.   Criminal law -- counts of rape -- continuing offense
     discussed. -- To constitute a continuing offense, there must
     be a continuous act or series of acts set on foot by a single
     impulse and operated by an unintermittent force.

2.   Criminal law -- when multiple charges will lie -- rape is not
     continuing offense. -- When the impulse is single, only one
     charge lies, no matter how long the act may continue; if there
     are successive impulses, even though all unite in a common
     course of action, separate charges lie; the test is whether
     the prohibition is of the individual acts or the course of
     action they constitute; if the former, each act is punished
     separately; if the latter, there can be but one penalty; the
     essence of rape is penetration; rape is not a continuing
     offense; rape is a single crime that may be committed in
     either of two ways. 

3.   Criminal law -- rape -- separate penetrations as result of
     separate impulses -- each constitutes offense. -- If separate
     penetrations occur as the result of separate impulses, whether
     accomplished in separate ways or repeated in the same manner,
     each constitutes an offense; it was not error to allow the
     jury to find appellant guilty of each of the four offenses
     charged.

4.   Constitutional law -- no authority cited for argument that
     appellant was deprived of due process -- statutes were not in
     conflict. -- Appellant cited no case authority whatever for
     his argument that he was deprived of due process of law as the
     result of the sentence imposed; his argument that Ark. Code
     Ann.  5-4-103(a) (Repl. 1993), which provides that a jury is
     to fix the punishment of one found guilty of a felony,
     conflicts with Ark. Code Ann.  5-4-501 (Supp. 1995), which
     requires that one who has previously been convicted of two or
     more violent felonies and who is then convicted of rape is to
     be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, was without
     merit; the argument ignored the language of  5-4-103(a),
     which states that the jury is to fix punishment "as authorized
     by this chapter," meaning Chapter 4 of Title 5; there was no
     conflict; nor is there a constitutional right to be sentenced
     by a jury. 


     Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; William A. Storey,
Judge; affirmed.

     Jerome J. Paddock, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     David Newbern, Justice.
     Bryan Keith Ricks was convicted of four counts of rape. 
Ark. Code Ann.  5-14-103 (Repl. 1993).  He was sentenced to life
imprisonment without parole.  The victim testified that Mr. Ricks
came into her apartment while she was sleeping.  She awakened to
find him on top of her.  During a period lasting almost two hours
he penetrated her genitalia with his penis on more than one
occasion, although he could not complete the act due to his
inability to achieve an erection.  He also penetrated her vaginal
labia with his tongue and with his fingers and penetrated her mouth
with his penis.  
     Mr. Ricks does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
but argues three of the four counts should have been dismissed
because all of the penetrations resulted from a single impulse.  He
also contends there has been a violation of his right to due
process of law as the result of a conflict between the statute
providing for jury sentencing and the statute providing a mandatory
sentence of life without parole for an habitual offender convicted
of rape.  We find no error and affirm.  

                       1. Multiple counts
     Mr. Ricks contends there was only one continuing act, and thus
there should have been a conviction on only one count of rape.  To
constitute a continuing offense, there must be a continuous act or
series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an
unintermittent force.  Britt v. State, 261 Ark. 488,