Court Opinion

ID: 9881830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 14:18:01.990404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:19.670227
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 446
                           ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                           DIVISION I
                                           No. CR-22-3

                                                   Opinion Delivered October 4, 2023
 STERLING WOOLFORD
                                             APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY
                                   APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH DIVISION
                                             [NO. 60CR-20-1828]
 V.
                                                   HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFEN,
 STATE OF ARKANSAS                                 JUDGE

                                     APPELLEE AFFIRMED

                               WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

       Following a bench trial, appellant Sterling Woolford was found guilty in the Pulaski County

Circuit Court of second-degree battery of a law enforcement officer, a Class D felony, in violation

of Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-13-202(a)(4)(A)(i).1         On appeal, Woolford challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm.

       On April 30, 2020, at approximately 10:30 p.m., while on patrol in the 4400 block of East

McCain Boulevard, North Little Rock Police Sergeant Justin Cross observed Woolford near the front

entrance doors of Bank OZK. When Sergeant Cross pulled into the bank parking lot and exited his

marked patrol car, Woolford immediately began yelling, cursing, and walking toward him.

According to Sergeant Cross, Woolford displayed an agitated and aggressive demeanor and exhibited

signs of intoxication—slurred speech, an unsteady walk, and an odor of intoxicants. Due to

       1   (Supp. 2023).
Woolford’s behavior, Sergeant Cross ordered Woolford to place his hands on the hood of his patrol

car and performed a pat-down search of his person. Attached to the front of Woolford’s waistband,

Sergeant Cross found a “gold-plated security badge.” For safety reasons, Sergeant Cross then

attempted to handcuff Woolford. Woolford resisted and tried to pull his arms away, yelling and

cursing; however, Sergeant Cross was able to place Woolford in handcuffs. While Sergeant Cross

continued the pat-down search, Woolford stated that he was “going to beat [Sergeant Cross’s] ass”

and then proceeded to lean back and quickly headbutt Sergeant Cross in the forehead above his left

eye. The impact from the headbutt briefly stunned Sergeant Cross. He then forced Woolford to the

ground; as he fell, Woolford’s “elbow or shoulder then impacted [Sergeant Cross’s] ribs.” Sergeant

Cross experienced head pain for approximately an hour, while the rib pain lingered for approximately

one week.

        On July 22, 2021, the circuit court held a bench trial and found Woolford guilty of second-

degree battery of a law enforcement officer. Woolford was sentenced as a habitual offender to a

term of 358 days’ incarceration in the Arkansas Department of Correction, credited 358 days for

time served, and given an additional two years’ suspended imposition of sentence.

        On appeal, Woolford challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.

He specifically argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the

evidence was insufficient to establish that he “knowingly caused physical injury” to Sergeant Cross.

Woolford asserts that the State failed to introduce substantial evidence at trial that Woolford “was

aware that he was practically certain to cause physical injury to a police officer by headbutting the

officer’s forehead.”

                                                 2
        A motion to dismiss at a bench trial is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. 2

However, a motion to dismiss must state with specificity the grounds on which the motion relies. 3

Failure to raise an issue in a motion does not preserve the issue for appeal. 4

        The State argues that Woolford failed to preserve the specific argument that he now makes

on appeal. We agree. At trial, after the State rested, Woolford moved for dismissal. Specifically, he

argued that Woolford “didn’t knowingly without legal justification cause an injury because he was

intoxicated.” The State responded that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to battery in the second

degree. The circuit court denied the dismissal motion. Without presenting evidence, the defense

then rested and renewed its motion “on the grounds that he didn’t knowingly while intoxicated injure

the officer. If anything, it was a reckless or negligent act.” The circuit court denied the renewed

motion for dismissal, stating that “voluntary intoxication is not available as a defense for negating

specific intent.” This is not the same argument Woolford urges on appeal.

        Here, Woolford shifts his sufficiency challenge from lack of proof that he acted knowingly

due to intoxication to an assertion that the State presented insufficient proof that he knowingly caused

a physical injury. We have long held that an appellant cannot change his argument on appeal. 5 An

appellant is bound by the scope of the motion to dismiss made below.6 Issues raised for the first time

       2   Harris v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 23, 480 S.W.3d 229.
       3   See Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b) (2019).
       4   Oliver v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 332, 498 S.W.3d 320.
       5   Hunter v. State, 330 Ark. 198, 952 S.W.2d 145 (1997).
       6   Gooch v. State, 2015 Ark. 227, 463 S.W.3d 296.

                                                    3
on appeal, even constitutional ones, will not be considered because the circuit court did not have an

opportunity to rule on them.7

       We affirm Woolford’s conviction for failure to preserve his argument for appeal.

       Affirmed.

       HARRISON, C.J., and KLAPPENBACH, J., agree.

       Mac J. Carder, Public Defender, by: Clint Miller, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

       7   Neal v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 245, 601 S.W.3d 135.

                                                  4