 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kimbrell v. State6/16/2004
t there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm. Before an appellant may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, however, he must have first moved for a directed verdict on specific grounds at trial. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b). Here, appellant's directed-verdict motions were aimed only at the offense of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Appellant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm. In fact, appellant stated that there was no basis for a directed verdict with regard to that charge. Thus, the issue appellant now raises has not been preserved for appeal. Even so, we note that appellant's argument is not well-taken. See Johnson v. State, supra.
Affirmed.
Bird and Vaught, JJ., agree.
|