Opinion ID: 1688132
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellant Penn

Text: Appellant Penn contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict and asserts two specific grounds on appeal in support of his position that the evidence was insufficient: (1) that the State failed to prove positively that he was Ellis's co-defendant or that he perpetrated the crimes; and (2) that the State failed to prove that either victim sustained serious physical injury as a result of a gunshot fired by him. Immediately following Ellis's motion for directed verdict at the close of the State's case, counsel for Penn stated as follows: And, Your Honor, I would make the same motion as far as Ronald Penn with the addition that there's been actually no testimony identifying Ronaldconvincing testimony that Ronald Penn was the one that was there with Toby Ellis. As Penn did not argue at the trial level the specific ground that the State failed to prove that either victim sustained serious physical injury as a result of a gunshot fired by him, this argument is not available to him for purposes of appeal. See Campbell v. State, supra ; Stricklin v. State, supra . Granted, Penn did argue that there was insufficient evidence to identify him as the perpetrator, yet he did not renew his motion at the close of all the evidence. After testimony was received from the sole witness for the defense, Detective Randy Reaves, the following exchange took place: ATTORNEY FOR ELLIS: That's all the witnesses we have for Mr. Ellis, Your Honor. At this time we rest and renew all of our motions previously made. THE COURT: All right. I show your motions made; same rulings. [Attorney for Penn]? ATTORNEY FOR PENN: Your Honor, I would ask that Detective Reaves testimony apply to Mr. Penn as well, and we have no further testimony. Counsel for Penn did not renew her motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, and, as such, her earlier motion is waived and will not be considered on appeal. See Jones v. State, supra . Simply put, since neither Ellis nor Penn preserved his position challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we do not reach the merits of their arguments. Affirmed.