Opinion ID: 1497247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attempted Capital Murder & Aggravated Robbery

Text: Clark cites Rowe v. State, 275 Ark. 37, 627 S.W.2d 16 (1982), and Barnum v. State, 276 Ark. 477, 637 S.W.2d 534 (1982), as authority for the proposition that a defendant may not be sentenced on both a charged felony and an underlying felony, as the underlying felony is a lesser-included offense. Indeed, this was once the law; however, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-1-110(d)(1) changed that law. See Walker v. State, 353 Ark. 12, 110 S.W.3d 752 (2003). Section 5-1-110(d)(1) (Repl.1997) [1] states, in pertinent part, as follows: Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, separate convictions and sentences are authorized for: (A) Capital murder, § 5-10-101, and any felonies utilized as underlying felonies for the murder[.] Circuit courts now have specific authority to sentence a defendant for the underlying felony of the capital murder, as well as the murder itself. See Walker v. State, supra . Clark was charged with attempted capital murder under Ark.Code Ann. § 5-3-201. An individual may be convicted of attempting to commit an offense if: (a) A person attempts to commit an offense if he or she purposely engages in conduct that: (1) Would constitute an offense if the attendant circumstances were as the person believes them to be; or (2) Constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate in the commission of an offense whether or not the attendant circumstances are as the person believes them to be. (b) When causing a particular result is an element of the offense, a person commits the offense of criminal attempt if, acting with the kind of culpable mental state otherwise required for the commission of the offense, the person purposely engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct intended or known to cause the particular result. (c) Conduct is not a substantial step under this section unless the conduct is strongly corroborative of the person's criminal purpose. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-3-201 (Repl.2006). In the instant case, robbery was used as the underlying felony for the attempted-capital-murder charge. Therefore, the elements required for Clark to be convicted of attempted capital murder were that he committed or attempted to commit robbery, and, in the course of or in flight from such robbery, caused the death of a person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. See Ark.Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(1) (Supp.2006). We have held that the required intent when a person is killed in the course of committing a felony, here robbery, is the intent to commit the felony, and not the intent to commit murder. See Jordan v. State, 356 Ark. 248, 147 S.W.3d 691 (2004); Isom v. State, 356 Ark. 156, 148 S.W.3d 257 (2004); Jones v. State, 336 Ark. 191, 984 S.W.2d 432 (1999). For an aggravated-robbery charge, the first required element is the commission of the robbery itself. See Ark.Code Ann. § 5-12-103 (Repl.2006). In addition, that person must have also either: (1) been armed with a deadly weapon, (2) represented by words or conduct that they were armed with a deadly weapon, or (3) inflicted or attempted to inflict death or serious physical injury upon another. See id. Here, the circuit court instructed the jury as to all the elements possible for aggravated robbery, and the jury returned a general verdict, failing to specify the ground upon which the verdict rested. Therefore, if any one of the elements for aggravated robbery renders Clark's conviction for both aggravated robbery and attempted capital murder in violation of double jeopardy, the circuit court erred in denying his Rule 37 petition. However, aggravated robbery is not a lesser-included offense of attempted capital murder. While an aggravated-robbery charge shares the intent to rob with attempted capital murder, aggravated robbery also requires one of three other elements. Two of those elements, being armed with a deadly weapon, or representing as such, are unique to aggravated robbery. The third possible element of aggravated robbery is having inflicted or attempted to inflict death or serious physical injury upon another. This element is not equivalent to the element in attempted capital murder that the defendant, in the course of or in flight from such robbery, caused the death of a person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. For the offense of attempted capital murder, the focus of the intent remains on the actual robbery, whereas in aggravated robbery the focus is on the intent to inflict death or serious physical injury. Thus, we conclude that aggravated robbery is not a lesser-included offense of attempted capital murder under section 5-1-110(b) and, accordingly, that the circuit court did not err in denying Clark's Rule 37 petition on that point.