Case Name: Amy Lee BALLINGER, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee
Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 2016-03-16
Citations: 486 S.W.3d 239
Docket Number: No. CR-15-337
Parties: Amy Lee BALLINGER, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
Judges: Hixson, J., agrees.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 486
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
2016 Ark. App. 177
Amy Lee BALLINGER, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
No. CR-15-337
Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION III.
Opinion Delivered: March 16, 2016
Law Office of Kathryn- L. Hudson, Little Rock, by: Kathryn L. Hudson, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
hAn Ashley County jury found appellant Amy Lee Ballinger guilty of theft of property, for which she was sentenced to sixty days in the county jail and placed on five years' probation. Appellant was also fined $1.00 and ordered to pay $20,000.00 in restitution. On appeal, she argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. More-specifically, she argues that the State failed to prove how she "deceived" the victims or that she did so "knowingly with the purpose to deprive." Because appellant did not preserve this argument for appeal, we affirm.
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 | gthe sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. In King v. State, we specifically held that the failure to renew a motion for directed verdict after the close of the State's, rebuttal. testimony waived the issue of sufficiency of the evidence. At trial, appellant made a motion for directed verdict at the end of the State's case and at the end of the defense's case-in-chief; however, appellant failed to renew her motion .at the close of the State's rebuttal testimony. We hold that appellant failed to preserve the question of sufficiency of the evidence by failing to properly renew the motion for directed verdict after the State's rebuttal testimony. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Hixson, J., agrees.
Virden, J,, concurs.
. 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).
. 338 Ark, 591, 999 S.W.2d 183 (1999).