{ "id": 1668948, "name": "Johnny BOONE, Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Boone v. State", "decision_date": "1978-07-17", "docket_number": "CR 77-237", "first_page": "169", "last_page": "172", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "264 Ark. 169" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "568 S.W.2d 229" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "254 Ark. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1624112 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/254/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ark. 301", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1619270 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/259/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 Ark. 207", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1621148 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/258/0207-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 738", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6182629 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0738-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 367, "char_count": 5635, "ocr_confidence": 0.878, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.4791062989870456e-07, "percentile": 0.8073300798617989 }, "sha256": "2586d5879bb7e44fcbd21db878939adaa7ee7cc1dfd11a18d4d9d5c563fddc95", "simhash": "1:7fe4165ec428e84c", "word_count": 937 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:41.361067+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Howard, J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "Johnny BOONE, Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PER CURIAM\nOn June 21, 1976, a jury found appellant guilty of burglary, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1001 (Repl. 1964), and grand larceny, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-3901 (Repl. 1964). Following the introduction of five (5) prior convictions by the State, the jury assessed appellant\u2019s punishment at thirty-one and one-half (31 1/2) years imprisonment for both the burglary and the grand larceny convictions. The trial court directed the sentences to be served consecutively, making a totai of sixty-three (63) years, in the Arkansas Department of Correction. From these convictions comes this appeal.\nAppellant\u2019s court-appointed counsel, who also represented appellant at trial, has filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record, but in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), has filed a brief stating there is no merit to the appeal. On May 8, 1978, appellant filed a pro se brief alleging several points of error. The State concurs with appellant\u2019s counsel that there is no merit to this appeal.\nAppellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relating to both convictions. Evidence was adduced at trial that the prosecuting witness\u2019 mobile home was burglarized while he was away from home on the night of August 15, 1975. A gold pocket watch was the only item taken in the burglary. Later that night appellant, according to the testimony of a thirteen-year-old brother of a friend of appellant\u2019s, threw the pocket watch onto the parking lot of Church\u2019s Chicken in El Dorado. The next morning an employee of Church\u2019s Chicken found the pocket watch, and the employee\u2019s manager took the watch to a jeweler to have it repaired. The police recovered the pocket watch from the employee, and the watch was identified by the prosecuting witness as the watch that was taken in the burglary. \u201cPossession of property recently stolen from burglarized premises, not satisfactorily explained to a jury, is sufficient to support a verdict of guilt of both the burglary and the larceny, even though there is no other evidence to show that the possessor had committed the crimes with felonious intent, either in person or by being present aiding, abetting or assisting another.\u201d Williams v. State, 258 Ark. 207, 523 S.W. 2d 377 (1975) . See also Klimas v. State, 259 Ark. 301, 534 S.W. 2d 202 (1976) and Taylor v. State, 254 Ark. 620, 495 S.W. 2d 532 (1973). We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the burglary conviction.\nIn reference to the sufficiency of the evidence for the grand larceny conviction, the prosecuting witness testified that he had received the pocket watch as a gift from a friend. The friend\u2019s children were so excited about the gift that they presented it to the prosecuting witness unwrapped with the price tag still attached to it. The price tag stated that the watch cost \u201ca hundred and nineteen and some change.\u201d No other evidence of value was presented. Since there was no objection raised regarding the admissibility of this evidence at the time it was offered, it was sufficient to establish that the value of the watch was in excess of thirty-five dollars ($35.00), the requisite amount for a conviction of grand larceny, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-3907 (Repl. 1964).\nAppellant also complains that he was denied his right to appeal and that his attorney did not adequately apprise him of his right to appeal; however, appellant was not denied his right to appeal as is evidenced by this opinion.\nAccordingly, appellant\u2019s convictions for burglary and grand larceny are affirmed, and counsel\u2019s motion to withdraw as attorney of record is granted.\nAffirmed.\nHoward, J., dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "PER CURIAM" }, { "text": "George Howard, Jr., Justice,\ndissenting. The majority affirms appellant\u2019s conviction on the grand larceny charge on the theory that appellant\u2019s counsel did not register an explicit objection to hearsay testimony presented in order to establish the value of a watch that was taken from the victim\u2019s home. There is no direct testimony as to the actual value of the watch other than testimony about a tag attached to the watch bearing a figure which, of course, exceeds the sum of $35.00. Testimony was also given indicating that the watch was given to the victim as a gift from a relative.\nIt is clear from this record that defense counsel did register an objection of a general nature when the State offered the watch into evidence. At the close of the State\u2019s case, defense counsel once again registered an objection and did, to a degree, specify that he was concerned about the State\u2019s failure to establish value. The majority contends that the objection was untimely at this point.\nAlso, appellant\u2019s attorney moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State\u2019s case, in effect, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Thus, in my judgment, the issue of value could be considered at this point.\nMoreover, it must be remembered that appellant received a sentence of thirty-one and one-half years on the burglary charge and thirty-one and one-half years on the grand larceny charge. These sentences are to run consecutively. It seems to me that in view of the long sentences received by the appellant in this case compassion alone dictates a finding by this Court, in the interest of justice, that the trial court committed reversible error in sustaining a term of thirty-one and one-half years that is based purely upon hearsay. Therefore, I would reverse the grand larceny conviction.", "type": "dissent", "author": "George Howard, Jr., Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "David F. Guthrie, for appellant.", "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Joyce Williams Warren, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Johnny BOONE, Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 77-237\n568 S.W. 2d 229\nJuly 17, 1978\n(In Banc)\nDavid F. Guthrie, for appellant.\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Joyce Williams Warren, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0169-01", "first_page_order": 197, "last_page_order": 200 }