{
  "id": 1896962,
  "name": "David MIDDLETON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Middleton v. State",
  "decision_date": "1992-12-14",
  "docket_number": "CR 92-421",
  "first_page": "307",
  "last_page": "309",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "311 Ark. 307"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "842 S.W.2d 434"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "309 Ark. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1906091
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/309/0196-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 Ark. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1900950
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/306/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 Ark. 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1906032
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/309/0040-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 Ark. 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1904340
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/308/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 411",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871301
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0411-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 Ark. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1882792
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/303/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 Ark. 39",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1904386
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/308/0039-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 3-3-205",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 4216,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.917,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.9456774687314697e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9036152300771203
    },
    "sha256": "570c9abcc66efac52c36ea224463c819489e2020dc537db9ef95b11692e71012",
    "simhash": "1:f9f2c93565acd34c",
    "word_count": 712
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:33.473421+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "David MIDDLETON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice.\nAppellant, David Middleton, appeals from the part of a judgment of the Newton Circuit Court convicting him of \u201cpossession with intent to deliver a quantity of intoxicating beverages without having a valid license as provided in the Arkansas Alcoholic Control Act.\u201d The judgment was entered pursuant to a jury verdict which, among other things not relevant to this appeal, sentenced appellant to serve one year in the Newton County Jail and fined him $ 1,000.00 for the charge in question. For reversal of the conviction, appellant asserts two points of error. Both of appellant\u2019s arguments are procedurally barred and we therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.\nAppellant\u2019s first argument for reversal is that the charge for which he was convicted is not a criminal offense under the statute named in the charging instrument. The heading of the information lists a summary of the charges against appellant and among that list is the charge at issue on this appeal: \u201cPOSSESSION OF ALCOHOL WITH THE INTENT TO SALE, #3-3-205, 1 count.\u201d However, the text of the information states the charge as follows:\nCount \u00a710 The said defendant on the 30th day of July, 1991, in Newton County, Arkansas, did unlawfully possess, with the intent to deliver a quantity of intoxicating beverages without having a valid license as provided by the Arkansas Alcoholic Control Act, against the peace and dignity of the state of Arkansas. [Emphasis added.]\nCount Ten obviously charges appellant with conduct in violation of the entire Alcoholic Control Act. Thus, the premise of appellant\u2019s argument, that he was charged with violating only Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 3-3-205 (Supp. 1991), is false.\nThe fact that appellant\u2019s argument is based on a false premise is of no .consequence to our decision on appeal because appellant has not preserved this argument for our review. Appellant did not object to the charging instrument at trial. The trial court was not apprised of the error about which appellant complains and made no ruling for our review. As this argument is raised for the first time on appeal, it is not preserved for our review. Mays v. State, 308 Ark. 39, 822 S.W.2d 846 (1992). We point out that while it is true that being convicted of a crime for which one was not charged is a violation of due process, Hill v. State, 303 Ark. 462, 798 S.W.2d 65 (1990), Hedrick v. State, 292 Ark. 411, 730 S.W.2d 488 (1987), even constitutional arguments are waived when argued for the first time on appeal. Collins v. State, 308 Ark. 536, 826 S.W.2d 231 (1992).\nAs his second argument for reversal, appellant asserts that if we determine the charge for which he was convicted is indeed a crime, there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We have repeatedly held that in order to preserve a sufficiency of the evidence argument for appellate review, an appellant must move for a directed verdict at the close of the state\u2019s case and again at the close of all the evidence in the trial. A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.21(b); Shankle v. State, 309 Ark. 40, 827 S.W.2d 642 (1992). The record reflects that appellant waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to make a motion for directed verdict at the close of the state\u2019s case before presenting evidence on his behalf. In addition, appellant again waived this argument when at the close of all evidence, he merely made \u201cthe usual motions.\u201d A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, whenever it is made, requires a specific motion to apprise the trial court of the particular point raised; a general \u201cusual motion\u201d such as the one made by appellant will not suffice. Rule 36.21 (b) is strictly construed. Easter v. State, 306 Ark. 452, 815 S.W.2d 924 (1991). We adhere to that strict construction and do not consider the merits of appellant\u2019s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence due to his waiver. McArthur v. State, 309 Ark. 196, 830 S.W.2d 842 (1992).\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Laws & Murdock, P.A., for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Cathy Derden, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "David MIDDLETON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 92-421\n842 S.W.2d 434\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 14, 1992\nLaws & Murdock, P.A., for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Cathy Derden, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0307-01",
  "first_page_order": 331,
  "last_page_order": 333
}