Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 384 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-25-614 Opinion Delivered September 2, 2026 TIMOTHY FRANCIS APPEAL FROM THE DREW COUNTY APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 22CR-24-169] V. HONORABLE CREWS PURYEAR, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED APPELLEE KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge Appellant Timothy Francis appeals after he was convicted by a Drew County Circuit Court jury of aggravated robbery and theft of property of $1,000 or less. He was sentenced to serve an aggregate of 180 months’ incarceration. On appeal, appellant argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. We affirm. I. Relevant Facts Appellant was charged by criminal information with aggravated robbery in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-12-103 (Repl. 2013), a Class Y felony, and theft of property of $1,000 or less in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-36-103 (Supp. 2023), a Class A misdemeanor. A jury trial was held on March 13, 2025. On September 18, 2024, appellant went to the Stop and Shop gas station in Winchester, Arkansas. Two videos of the incident were admitted into evidence at trial and shown to the jury. Appellant can be seen asking the cashier, Angelia Beckton, for a pack of cigarettes, and she turned around to get them. When she turned to face appellant again, appellant brandished a gun pointed in her direction and demanded that she give him all the money in the cash register. Ms. Beckton screamed and backed away. However, appellant told her, “Stop playing. Give it here. Stop playing. Don’t run. . . . Lift the register up. Give me this money at the bottom. Don’t have time.” Appellant took all the cash and walked out the door. Ms. Beckton testified and identified appellant in the courtroom as the person who robbed her while holding a black-and-silver gun. She did not remember how much money appellant took from the drawer, but she testified that there was at least $300 in the top drawer. She explained that she thought she was “going to get killed” when she saw the gun. Although Ms. Beckton admitted that appellant did not specifically tell her he was going to kill her, she testified that she thought she “wasn’t going to make it home to see [her] family” if she refused to give appellant the money. After appellant left, Ms. Beckton went to the window and tried to get as many details as she could about the vehicle appellant left in, which she shared with her boss and law enforcement. On cross-examination, Ms. Beckton reiterated that appellant showed her the gun and that although appellant did not verbally threaten her, she believed it to be “a threat when he showed it to” her. She admitted that she did not think appellant had pointed the gun directly at her and that when appellant grabbed the money from the drawer, the gun was no 2 longer in his right hand. She further admitted that appellant did not hit her, hold her, or tie her down during the robbery. Officer Chris Hawkins testified that he responded to a call from dispatch and stopped appellant’s vehicle after he had fled from the gas station. He said there were three people in the vehicle and that a firearm was found in the driver’s-side floorboard. Officer Chris Austin testified that he searched appellant’s vehicle and found cash underneath the rear seat and a black-and-silver pistol in the front driver’s-side floorboard. Pictures of this evidence were admitted at trial and shown to the jury. Officer Rick Harvey testified that he retrieved the evidence after it had been removed from the vehicle. He explained that the firearm had nine live rounds of ammunition in the magazine and one loose round. He also took $577 in cash. The evidence was stored in the evidence locker until trial, and both the firearm and the cash were admitted into evidence at trial. After the State rested, appellant’s counsel made the following motion for directed verdict: Your Honor, at this time I move for a directed verdict on aggravated robbery and theft of property. Particularly, on aggravated robbery, I would move that they have not proven beyond speculation and conjecture that, one: Timothy Francis is the individual in question. Two, that he had a purpose to commit theft. They haven’t proven that he - - they have not proven that he employed any physical force. Physical force is defined as bodily impact, restraint, or confinement. I believe it to be uncontested that he did not employ any physical force. I would also say that they have not proven that he threatened to immediately employ physical force upon another. 3 In particularly, at best they would show that maybe she felt threatened. But that’s not the standard. That’s not the proof. The proof - - the standard is, he has to threaten to immediately employ physical force upon another. And, they haven’t proven beyond speculation and conjecture that Mr. Francis was the one armed with a deadly weapon, or that he represented by words or conduct that he was armed with a deadly weapon. So, I’d move for a directed verdict on the issue of aggravated robbery. I’d move for a directed verdict for the record on theft of property saying that they haven’t proven beyond speculation and conjecture that he knowingly exercised the control or property of another with the intent to deprive that person of the property. The State disagreed and explained that, given the video of the robbery and Ms. Beckton’s testimony, there was ample evidence. Although the State acknowledged that it is uncontroverted that appellant did not verbally threaten to shoot or kill Ms. Beckton, it explained that a threat does not have to be verbal. Instead, appellant’s actions can be a threat. The circuit court agreed with the State and denied the motion. The defense rested without presenting any evidence. The jury found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property of $1,000 or less. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to serve fifteen years’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery and one year of imprisonment and a $2,500 fine for theft of property of $1,000 or less, which the circuit court imposed. This appeal followed. II. Standard of Review We treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Armstrong v. State, 2020 Ark. 309, 607 S.W.3d 491. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we assess the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. We will affirm a judgment of conviction if 4 substantial evidence exists to support it. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence that is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id. Circumstantial evidence may provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Collins v. State, 2021 Ark. 35, 617 S.W.3d 701. Whether the evidence excludes every other hypothesis is left to the jury to decide. Id. Further, the credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury, not the court; the trier of fact is free to believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. Armstrong, supra. This court has noted that a criminal defendant’s intent or state of mind is seldom apparent. Benton v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 223, 599 S.W.3d 353. One’s intent or purpose, being a state of mind, can seldom be positively known to others, so it ordinarily cannot be shown by direct evidence but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances. Id. Because intent cannot be proved by direct evidence, the fact-finder is allowed to draw on common knowledge and experience to infer it from the circumstances. Id. Because of the difficulty in ascertaining a defendant’s intent or state of mind, a presumption exists that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his or her acts. Id. III. Sufficiency of the Evidence “A person commits robbery if, with the purpose of committing a felony or misdemeanor theft or resisting apprehension immediately after committing a felony or misdemeanor theft, the person employs or threatens to immediately employ physical force 5 upon another person.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-102 (Repl. 2013). A person commits aggravated robbery if he or she commits robbery as defined in Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-12-102, and the person (1) Is armed with a deadly weapon; (2) Represents by word or conduct that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon; or (3) Inflicts or attempts to inflict death or serious physical injury upon another person. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-103(a). Appellant does not contest on appeal that he committed the misdemeanor of theft of property. Instead, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery because the State failed to “prove that the Appellant employed or threatened to immediately employ physical force, or created a circumstance that would cause a reasonable person to believe the use of physical force is imminent, upon another person.” He explains that there was no testimony that he verbally threatened to shoot or kill Ms. Beckton. However, whether appellant verbally conveyed that he was going to harm Ms. Beckton is irrelevant. Rockins v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 19, 541 S.W.3d 457. There is no requirement in the robbery statute that the threat of physical harm to an individual be made directly or individually, only that physical force be immediately threatened, however that threat may be communicated. Robinson v. State, 317 Ark. 17, 875 S.W.2d 837 (1994). The jury is allowed to draw upon its common knowledge and experience in reaching a verdict from the facts directly proved. Id. As the Supreme Court stated in McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16, 17–18 (1986), “the display of a gun instills fear in the average citizen.” 6 Here, the jury saw a video of appellant brandishing a gun pointed in Ms. Beckton’s direction and demanding that she give him all the money in the cash register. Ms. Beckton screamed and backed away. However, appellant told her, “Stop playing. Give it here. Stop playing. Don’t run. . . . Lift the register up. Give me this money at the bottom. Don’t have time.” Moreover, Ms. Beckton testified that she thought she was “going to get killed” when she saw the gun. Although Ms. Beckton admitted that appellant did not specifically tell her he was going to kill her, she testified that she thought she “wasn’t going to make it home to see [her] family” if she refused to give appellant the money. Under the circumstances of this case, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that such behavior creates an implied threat of physical force. See Knight v. State, 277 Ark. 213, 640 S.W.2d 442 (1982) (holding that the testimony of both employees in the drugstore that was robbed that guns were pointed at them or held on them during the course of the robbery was sufficient to support an aggravated-robbery conviction); Butler v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 708 (holding there was sufficient evidence to find that Butler’s brandishing of a weapon was a communicated threat and that it was done while Butler was essentially asking if the victim had anything of value). Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the State provided sufficient evidence to support the appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery. Accordingly, we affirm. Affirmed. ABRAMSON and THYER, JJ., agree. Erin W. Lewis, for appellant. 7 Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Mallory Wood, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 8