Title: Dulaney v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Melvin DULANEY v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-821                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 13, 1997


1.   Evidence -- sufficiency of -- preservation of issue for
     appeal. -- To preserve for appeal the issue of the sufficiency
     of the evidence, an appellant must make a motion for a
     directed verdict at the close of the State's case and renew
     the motion at the close of all evidence presented.

2.   Motions -- directed verdict -- appellant required to make
     specific rather than general motion. -- Arkansas Rule of
     Criminal Procedure 33.1 requires the appellant to make a
     specific, not general, motion for a directed verdict, in which
     the appellant clearly enunciates the proof of the element of
     the crime that is alleged to be missing.

3.   Appeal & error -- even constitutional arguments will not be
     addressed for first time on appeal. -- The supreme court will
     not address even constitutional arguments that are raised for
     the first time on appeal.


     Appeal from Craighead Circuit Court; David Burnett, Judge;
affirmed.
     Cortinez Law Firm, by: Christopher D. Anderson, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Brad Newman, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.
     Melvin Dulaney was convicted by a jury of possession of
cocaine with the intent to deliver, being a felon in possession of
a firearm, and simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm.  For
these crimes, Dulaney received a cumulative sentence of thirty-four
years' imprisonment.  On appeal, Dulaney contests the sufficiency
of the evidence to support his convictions for being a felon in
possession of a firearm and simultaneous possession of drugs and
firearms. 
     On May 4, 1995, a confidential informant working with the
Arkansas Drug Task Force bought crack cocaine from Melvin Dulaney
while inside Dulaney's home.  The police used this information to
obtain a search warrant for Dulaney's residence.  On May 5, 1995,
three officers from the Drug Task Force executed the warrant and
found in Dulaney's home a twelve-gauge shotgun, a .22 caliber
pistol, four marijuana cigarette butts, a four-gram bag of cocaine,
rolling papers, and a pager. The police also found a real estate
rental contract that established that Dulaney was the lessee of the
searched premises where he resided with his two daughters and his
fiancée.
     After a jury trial, Dulaney was convicted and sentenced to
seven years for possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver,
five years for possession of cocaine, five years for being a felon
in possession of a firearm, and seventeen years for simultaneous
possession of drugs and a firearm.  We affirm the convictions and
sentences.
     For his sole argument on appeal, Dulaney challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to support two of his convictions; 
however, he did not preserve the issue for appellate review. In his
motion at the end of the State's case-in-chief, his attorney said,
"At this time, I would like to make a request for a directed
verdict."  At the close of all evidence, Dulaney failed to renew
his motion for a directed verdict. 
     In order to preserve for appeal the issue of the sufficiency
of the evidence, an appellant must make a motion for a directed
verdict at the close of the State's case and renew this motion at
the close of all evidence presented.  Tolbert v. State, 316 Ark.
671, 874 S.W.2d 371 (1994); Cummings v. State, 315 Ark. 541,