Blakes v. State

2021 Ark. App. 32

615 S.W.3d 768

Mardriekus BLAKES, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-19-964

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION III.

Opinion Delivered: January 27, 2021

Bart Ziegenhorn, West Memphis, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

Appellant Mardriekus Blakes was convicted by a Crittenden County jury of two counts of attempted first-degree murder and four counts of felony terroristic act for shooting at victims Thomas and Cameron Bush as they were leaving a convenience store in a pickup truck. Appellant challenges only the attempted-murder convictions on appeal. He alleges that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he purposely attempted to cause the victims’ death. We previously ordered rebriefing in this case, Blakes v. State , 2020 Ark. App. 377, 2020 WL 5405572, and the case has returned. We now consider the merits and affirm appellant's convictions.

Cameron Bush testified that he and appellant had been friends for a long time before the shooting on September 27, 2018. A month before the incident, he and appellant had a "falling out" over five dollars. Appellant claimed Cameron owed him five dollars for cocaine; Cameron had refused to pay him. Cameron said that he and his father, Thomas Bush, pulled into Flash Mart in West Memphis where he ran into appellant. Appellant confronted Cameron in the store, and they began to fight. Thomas went into the store to see why Cameron had not come out. Blakes came to the door, put a gun to Thomas's head, and said "get back up off me." Thomas and Cameron left the store and got into their pickup truck. As Thomas was backing up, appellant stood in front of the truck and started shooting at the truck.

Cameron testified that appellant's aim was "slightly low," and the bullets struck the truck's hood. He said if they had been "an inch higher," they would have gone through the windshield. Thomas testified that appellant's pistol was aimed at eye level and that the bullets hit the truck directly in front of where they were seated. One bullet hit Thomas's pants leg as it went through the floor. Thomas said that if a bullet had hit the engine block, it could have ricocheted up and killed one of them. A copy of the surveillance video from Flash Mart that captured the incident was played for the jury.

Appellant moved for directed verdict, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show that he had the "purpose" to cause the Bushes’ deaths. He argued that the evidence demonstrated that he aimed at the hood of the truck and not at the occupants and that all the bullets went into the truck at a downward angle. The court denied the motion, finding that it was a jury question regarding whether appellant had the purpose of causing death. The court said the video was clear that the defendant was standing, and the victims were sitting in a small truck. Appellant was standing above them, shooting downward. The court recognized that appellant was firing a deadly weapon in the direction of two people and that the jury could conclude he was "simply a bad shot."

The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Swanigan v. State , 2019 Ark. App. 296, at 8, 577 S.W.3d 737, 745. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Jackson v. State , 363 Ark. 311, 315, 214 S.W.3d 232, 235 (2005). We do not weigh the evidence presented at trial, as that is a matter for the fact-finder. Harmon v. State , 340 Ark. 18, 22, 8 S.W.3d 472, 474–75 (2000). Witness credibility is also an issue for the fact-finder, who is free to believe all or a portion of any witness's testimony and whose duty it is to resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. Jackson v. State , 2011 Ark. App. 528, at 6, 385 S.W.3d 394, 397. Finally, circumstantial evidence can support a conviction;...