Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 536 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-26-24 Opinion Delivered November 4, 2026 RICKEY WHITLEY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST DIVISION V. [NO. 60CR-24-1379] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE LEON JOHNSON, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge Rickey Lee Whitley appeals the sentencing order entered by the Pulaski County Circuit Court convicting him of two counts of rape and one count of first-degree terroristic threatening. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of thirty-five years’ imprisonment. He argues on appeal that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm. On April 10, 2024, Whitley was charged by felony information with two counts of rape—specifically, he engaged in sexual intercourse and deviate sexual activity with the victim, Treasure Forte, by forcible compulsion; one count of terroristic threatening—specifically, with the purpose of terrorizing another person, he threatened to cause death or serious physical injury to Treasure Forte; and third-degree battery, which was subsequently nolle prossed. The information alleged that the events occurred on July 26, 2022. At a jury trial held on September 24, 2025, the State presented the following evidence. Forte, who was twenty years old when the crimes were committed, was approached by a very tall “muscular built” bald black male at a bus stop in Little Rock. She identified him in open court as Whitley. At the time, Forte was homeless, had been “couch surf[ing] from friend to friend,” and was planning to meet a friend at the downtown library. She said Whitley offered to help her find a place to stay. He picked up her things, and they walked for about an hour, stopping briefly at a gas station and then continuing until they climbed a hill behind a grocery store on Colonel Glenn Road. Forte described the area as secluded and wooded. She said there were folded lounge chairs, a tent, an abandoned vehicle, and a few random objects lying around. She said a man and a woman, who spoke briefly with Whitley, were there when they arrived, but they left soon after. Forte testified that she and Whitley remained sitting in chairs talking for a while. She said that when she got up to leave, Whitley got “very upset” and pushed his hand against her face. Forte said they were arguing, and Whitley “tried to take a swing” at her. Whitley said he was going to “kill” her, choked her with his hands, and pushed her to the ground. He told her that he was going to “slit her throat” if she did not obey him. She said he was on his knees while she was on the ground, and he continued to choke her and tried to put his hands between her legs in her shorts. Forte screamed and tried to get his hands off her while Whitley held her down by her neck and threatened to slit her throat and burn her “stuff.” 2 She was eventually able to get off the ground, and Whitley asked her to perform oral sex on him, which she did because she was afraid he would kill her if she did not. She said Whitley then asked her to stand up, bend over, and take off her shorts. He put his penis in her vagina and ejaculated onto her shorts after about two minutes of sexual intercourse. She said she pulled her shorts up and asked him if she could leave. She ran down the hill to the grocery store. She said Whitley followed her and told her that he was going to get “a couple of his roommates” to kidnap and rape her. She said she last saw Whitley at the grocery store front doors. She said she ran to the front desk of the grocery store and called 911. 1 Officer Eboney Warren responded to the call. Officer Warren testified that Forte was very nervous and had scratches on both sides of her neck. Officer Warren called an ambulance to transport Forte to Baptist Health Medical Center, where she underwent a sexual-assault examination. A nurse practitioner collected vaginal and rectal swabs from Forte, which were submitted for forensic DNA testing. Detective Bailee Torro of the Little Rock Police Department said that she interviewed Forte after the incident and showed Forte a six-person photographic lineup a few days later. Forte identified Whitley as the assailant. Whitley’s DNA was then submitted for testing, and his DNA profile matched DNA found on the rectal swabs taken from Forte “within all scientific certainty.” 1 The 911 call was played for the jury and introduced into evidence. 3 The jury found Whitley guilty on all counts and recommended consecutive sentences of twenty years’ imprisonment on each rape conviction and fifteen years’ imprisonment for the conviction of first-degree terroristic threatening along with a $10,000 fine. The court entered a sentencing order in accordance with the verdict and sentenced Whitley to concurrent twenty-year terms of imprisonment for the two rape convictions and a fifteen- year term for the terroristic-threatening conviction, to run consecutively with the rape sentences, along with a $10,000 fine. Whitley filed this appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must assess the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Collins v. State, 2021 Ark. 35, at 4, 617 S.W.3d 701, 704. We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, at 4, 588 S.W.3d 1, 4. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id., 588 S.W.3d at 4. Witness credibility is an issue for the fact-finder, which may believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. McKisick v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 426, at 4, 653 S.W.3d 839, 843. Whitley was convicted of two counts of rape—one for sexual intercourse and one for deviate sexual activity (oral sex). A person commits rape if he or she engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person by forcible compulsion. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(1) (Supp. 2025). “Deviate sexual activity” is defined as “[t]he penetration, 4 however slight, of the anus or mouth of a person by the penis of another person” or “[t]he penetration, however slight, of the labia majora or anus of a person by any body member or foreign instrument manipulated by another person.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(1)(A)–(B) (Repl. 2024). “Forcible compulsion” means “physical force or a threat, express or implied, of death or physical injury to or kidnapping of any person[.]” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(3). When a sex act is committed, the test to determine if there was physical force is whether the act was against the will of the party upon whom the act was committed. Goodman v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 262, at 6, 306 S.W.3d 443, 446. Whitley argues that the evidence does not support his rape convictions because he engaged in consensual sex with Forte and never threatened her or held her against her will. He contends that Forte’s testimony was “riddled with contradictory statements” and that she did not walk away when she had the chance or call or ask for help. Forte testified that Whitley took her to a secluded, wooded area and became angry when she tried to leave. She said that Whitley shoved her to the ground, choked her, and threatened to slit her throat. She testified that she performed oral sex and engaged in sexual intercourse with Whitley because she was afraid that he would kill her if she did not obey him. The jury found Forte credible. A rape victim’s testimony, standing alone, can constitute substantial evidence to support a rape conviction. Hillman v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 89, at 2, 569 S.W.3d 372, 374; Goodman, 2009 Ark. App. 262, at 6, 306 S.W.3d at 446. Viewing the evidence in the light 5 most favorable to the State, we hold there is substantial evidence to support Whitley’s rape convictions. Whitley also argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support the terroristic- threatening conviction because Forte admitted that Whitley never “pulled a weapon on her,” and she never recalled seeing him with a weapon. Moreover, he claims, while Forte testified that Whitley threatened to have his roommates kidnap and rape her, Forte admitted that she never gave Whitley any identifying information from which he could find her. A person commits first-degree terroristic threatening if, “[w]ith the purpose of terrorizing another person, the person threatens to cause death or serious physical injury . . . to another person[.]” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-301(a)(1)(A). Serious physical injury means physical injury “that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes . . . protracted impairment to health” or “loss or protracted impairment of any bodily member or organ[.]” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-102(21) (Repl. 2024). A terroristic threat need not be explicit or verbal. Stockstill v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 29, at 4, 511 S.W.3d 889, 893. There is no requirement that the recipient of the threat actually be terrorized, although the record reflects that Forte felt terrorized—she testified that she thought Whitley would kill her if she did not obey him. Adams v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 308, at 6, 435 S.W.3d 520, 524. Finally, the State does not have to prove that the accused has the immediate ability to carry out the threat. Lowry v. State, 364 Ark. 6, 17, 216 S.W.3d 101, 109 (2005). What is prohibited is the communication of a threat with the purpose of terrorizing another person. Id., 216 S.W.3d at 109. 6 This case turned on credibility, and any inconsistencies in Forte’s testimony were for the jury to resolve. Viewed most favorably to the State, the evidence established that Whitley got very upset when Forte tried to leave and pushed his hand against her face, “tried to take a swing” at her, and told her he was going to “kill” her. He said that he would “slit her throat” if she did not obey him. He said this while raping her. Whitley is asking us to reweigh the evidence in his favor. We do not reweigh the evidence presented at trial or assess the credibility of the witnesses because those are matters for the jury. Doucoure v. State, 2024 Ark. 162, at 4, 698 S.W.3d 643, 645. We hold that this evidence constitutes substantial evidence that Whitley committed first-degree terroristic threatening. Affirmed. KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and BROWN, J., agree. John Ogles, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 7