Opinion ID: 1859752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tunnicliff's Issues on Appeal

Text: Tunnicliff contends that the trial court erred in finding that the use of a reverse buy is permissible under Arkansas law. He argues that nothing in Arkansas law permits law enforcement officials to participate in reverse buys. Tunnicliff argues further that reverse buys violate Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-401(a) (Repl.1997), which prohibits the sale of controlled substances by any persons, and that there is no statutory exception for police officers to sell controlled substances. Tunnicliff urges this court to adopt the holdings of a minority of jurisdictions that have held that reverse buys constitute entrapment as a matter of law. While this is an issue of first impression in this jurisdiction, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently held that participation by government agents or informants in the illegal manufacture or distribution of drugs is a recognized means for the government to obtain convictions in drug-related offenses. United States v. Berg, 178 F.3d 976 (8th Cir.1999). The Berg decision does discuss the possibility of the government's conduct being so outrageous as to warrant reversal of a conviction. The facts of this case, however, do not give rise to a finding of outrageous government conduct. Indeed, Tunnicliff presents no convincing argument as to why this court should hold that reverse buys constitute entrapment as a matter of law. This court has consistently refused to consider an argument where it is not apparent without further research that the argument is well taken. See, e.g., McGehee v. State, 338 Ark. 152, 992 S.W.2d 110 (1999); Miller v. State, 328 Ark. 121, 942 S.W.2d 825 (1997). Accordingly, we will not consider Tunnicliff's argument regarding reverse buys on appeal. Related to the legality of the use of a reverse buy is the issue whether the police are allowed to use real drugs during a reverse buy. Tunnicliff argues that the Uniform Controlled Substance Act, codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 5-64-101 to -608 (Repl.1997), does not provide an exception for any person to engage in the sale of drugs, including law enforcement officials. This argument ignores, however, section 5-64-506, which specifically exempts state officers from liability under the Act when engaged in the performance of their duties. In adopting this exception, the legislature clearly recognized the possible need of law enforcement officials to utilize real drugs during the course of undercover sting operations. The very facts of this case indicate the necessity of using real drugs in undercover operations. According to the testimony of eyewitnesses, both Tunnicliff and Pyle sampled the substance to be sold before handing over the cash. If a counterfeit substance had been used, law enforcement officials may well have been placed in danger, a danger made even more real by the fact that a firearm was found in Pyle's car. Tunnicliff also argues that the only reason real drugs were used was to enhance any penalty received as a result of a conviction. Again, Tunnicliff fails to support this argument with any convincing legal authority. Absent any convincing argument or authority, we will not consider this issue on appeal. McGehee, 338 Ark. 152, 992 S.W.2d 110; Miller, 328 Ark. 121, 942 S.W.2d 825. Next, Tunnicliff argues that it was error for the trial court to refuse to dismiss the firearm charges against him. At the close of the prosecution's case, Tunnicliff moved to dismiss the firearm charges on the ground that there was not substantial evidence to link him to the gun. As the State correctly points out, however, Tunnicliff failed to renew this motion at the conclusion of the case. As we stated in King v. State, 338 Ark. 591, 999 S.W.2d 183 (1999), our procedural rules require that a motion for a directed verdict be brought at the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence and again at the close of the case. See also Ark. R.Crim. P. 33.1. Tunnicliff's failure to renew his motion at the close of his case precludes our review of this point. Finally, Tunnicliff argues that the trial court erred in running the sentences for the firearm convictions consecutively instead of concurrently. It is well established that the question whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently lies solely within the province of the trial court. Brown v. State, 326 Ark. 56, 931 S.W.2d 80 (1996); Love v. State, 324 Ark. 526, 922 S.W.2d 701 (1996). The appellant assumes a heavy burden of demonstrating that the trial judge failed to give due consideration to the exercise of his discretion in the matter of the consecutive sentences. Teague v. State, 328 Ark. 724, 946 S.W.2d 670 (1997); Brown, 326 Ark. 56, 931 S.W.2d 80. The only reason Tunnicliff sets forth in support of his contention that the trial court abused its discretion is that the court gave no reason for running the drug sentences concurrently while running the firearm sentences consecutively. The trial court, however, is not required to explain its reason for running sentences consecutively. See Smallwood, 326 Ark. 813, 935 S.W.2d 530. Tunnicliff has thus failed to bear his burden of proof with regard to this point on appeal. We, therefore, cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in running the sentences consecutively. Having concluded that there is no merit to Tunnicliff's arguments, we address those points raised solely by Pyle.