Opinion ID: 1497247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Aggravated Robbery & First-Degree Battery

Text: The remaining issue is whether first-degree battery is a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery. The charging instrument and the jury instructions were both limited to the second definition of battery listed in Ark.Code Ann. § 5-13-201(a)(1)(Repl.1997). Therefore, the State had to prove that Clark, with the purpose of causing physical injury to another person, caused physical injury by means of a firearm, to convict him of first-degree battery. As previously noted, the elements of aggravated robbery include the robbery itself, plus one of the following elements: (1) the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon, (2) the defendant represented by words or conduct that they were armed with a deadly weapon, or (3) the defendant inflicted or attempted to inflict death or serious physical injury upon another. See Ark.Code Ann. 5-12-103 (Repl.2006). First-degree battery is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery as it is not established by proof of the same or less than all of the elements required to prove aggravated robbery. First-degree battery, as defined by the instructions in this case, requires proof of a purpose of causing any physical injury to another person. Such a requirement is not needed for aggravated robbery, unless the aggravated robbery is shown by proof that the defendant inflicted or attempted to inflict death or serious physical injury. However, even if the aggravated robbery is established with proof that the defendant inflicted or attempted to inflict death or serious physical injury, only first-degree battery contains the unique proof of the use of a firearm to cause injury. Furthermore, first-degree battery simply requires proof of a purpose of causing some kind of physical injury. Aggravated robbery requires proof of a robbery, either with a deadly weapon, a representation that the defendant is armed with a deadly weapon, or the infliction/attempted infliction of death or serious physical injury on another. As previously noted, the risk of injury is not the only difference between the two crimes. First-degree battery requires proof of the use of a firearm, whereas aggravated robbery does not; aggravated robbery requires proof of a robbery, whereas first-degree battery does not. Thus, we conclude that first-degree battery is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery under section 5-1-110(b). Clark's final point on appeal is that his attorney was ineffective for failing to move the circuit court to limit the judgment of conviction to one charge. However, as the State avers, this argument was not preserved for appellate review. Clark failed to raise this issue at the circuit court level and, as a result, the circuit court did not provide a ruling. Therefore, Clark is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal. See Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18, 238 S.W.3d 24 (2006). Because aggravated robbery is not a lesser-included offense of attempted capital murder, and first-degree battery is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery, the circuit court did not err in denying Clark's Rule 37 petition. Affirmed.