Cedric Williams v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2019 Ark. App. 602
Reason: I attest to the
accuracy and integrity of this
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
document
Date: 2021-06-18 11:29:07
Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION IV
No. CR-19-581
9.7.5

Opinion Delivered: December 11, 2019

CEDRIC WILLIAMS APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 35CR-18-354]
V.
HONORABLE ALEX GUYNN,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

Appellant Cedric Williams was convicted in a jury trial of residential burglary and

third-degree battery. Williams was sentenced to a twenty-year prison term for residential

burglary to be served concurrently with one year of incarceration for third-degree battery.

Williams’s sole argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support his

residential-burglary conviction. We affirm.

A person commits residential burglary if he enters or remains unlawfully in a

residential occupiable structure of another person with the purpose of committing in the

residential occupiable structure any offense punishable by imprisonment. Ark. Code Ann.

§ 5-39-201(a)(1) (Repl. 2013). When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence, this court determines whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence,

direct or circumstantial. Medlock v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 282. Substantial evidence is

evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion
or conjecture. Id. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,

considering only the evidence that supports the verdict. Davis v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 274,

493 S.W.3d 339. Weighing the evidence, reconciling conflicts in the testimony, and

assessing credibility are all matters exclusively for the trier of fact, in this case the jury. Id.

Jackie Bankston testified for the State. Bankston stated that she was once married to

Williams and that they have three children together who are now adults. However,

Bankston and Williams have been divorced since 1999. Bankston stated that she would

occasionally pay Williams to come to her house to fix things but that this was strictly

business. She also testified that she typically kept her doors locked and her alarm on while

she was home because Williams would sometimes walk into her home as though he lived

there. Bankston stated that Williams was not allowed in her house unless she invited him

inside.

The burglary and third-degree battery occurred at Bankston’s house on June 29,

2018, and the battery victim was Kevin Patillo. Patillo has a disability and uses a walker,

and Williams and Patillo have known each other since childhood and were once friends.

Bankston testified that on that date she was preparing to go on vacation to Florida

and was in her car. She saw Williams coming across her yard, and because of their history,

she was reluctant to get out of the car. According to Bankston, Patillo’s car, which Williams

recognized, was parked outside her house. When Williams approached Bankston’s car,

Bankston told him she was getting ready to go to Florida. Patillo was in the house and was

going to help care for Bankston’s granddaughter while Bankston was gone. According to

Bankston, Williams accused her of planning to take Patillo with her to Florida, and she told

2
Williams that Patillo was not going with her. Before getting out of her car, Bankston asked

Williams to leave but Williams refused.

Bankston testified that after she got out of the car, Williams followed her to the front

door of the house. Bankston did not invite him inside the house, and Williams pushed her

out of the way and entered. As soon as Williams walked inside the house, he went to the

couch where Patillo was sitting, “snatched him off the couch,” and began hitting him.

Bankston stated that Williams got on top of Patillo, kicked him in the ribs, and hit him in

the head. As Patillo was being attacked by Williams, Patillo was unable to defend himself.

During the altercation, Bankston told Williams to leave but he refused. Bankston yelled for

her daughter to call the police, and Bankston tried to pull Williams off Patillo. However,

Williams overpowered her. Williams eventually left before the police arrived.

Patillo testified that he has a disabling condition known as neurofibromatosis, which

he has had his entire life. Patillo stated that this has resulted in multiple surgeries to remove

over a hundred tumors, and that Williams is aware of his condition.

Patillo described the events of June 29, 2018. Patillo testified that he was inside

Bankston’s house when he heard some commotion outside the door. Patillo stated that

Williams “bust[ed] through the door and proceeded to pound on me.” Patillo stated that

Williams first tackled him and then punched and kicked him in the side as Bankston tried

to pull Williams off him. Patillo testified that as a result of the attack he had soreness in his

side for the next three or four days. Patillo surmised that Williams was mad because Patillo

was at Bankston’s house.

3
In this appeal, Williams’s only argument is that there was insufficient evidence to

support his residential-burglary conviction. Specifically, Williams contends that the State

failed to prove that he had the intent to commit a crime against Patillo at the time he entered

Bankston’s house. Citing Wortham v. State, 5 Ark. App. 161, 634 S.W.2d 141 (1982),

Williams argues that merely entering a residence without the owner’s permission does not,

in itself, prove that the person entered the residence with the specific intent required for

residential burglary. Williams maintains that, to commit residential burglary, the purpose

to commit a particular offense must be established at the “point of or prior to entry” into

the residence. Arguing that proof on this element was lacking, Williams seeks reversal of

his residential-burglary conviction.

In order to prove residential burglary, the State had to prove that Williams entered

or remained unlawfully in Bankston’s house with the purpose to commit a battery against

Patillo. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-201(a)(1). “Enter or remain unlawfully” means to

enter or remain in or upon the premises when not licensed or privileged to enter or remain

in or upon the premises. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-101(3)(B) (Supp. 2017).

We hold that there was substantial evidence to support Williams’s residential-

burglary conviction. Contrary to Williams’s argument, the residential-burglary statute

contemplates either unlawful entry into the residence or remaining unlawfully in the residence

with the purpose of committing a crime punishable by imprisonment. And here, the State

presented substantial evidence of both. Bankston testified that, before Williams entered the

house, she had asked him to leave but that he shoved her out of the way and entered the

4
house uninvited before immediately attacking Patillo. Bankston further testified that, during

Williams’s attack on Patillo inside the house, she again told Williams to leave but he refused.

Williams’s reliance on Wortham, supra, is misplaced. In that case, the appellant’s

residential-burglary conviction was reversed where the proof showed that two girls were

present in a house and one of them saw appellant inside the house standing in the doorway.

The girl screamed and the appellant ran away. In Wortham, the supreme court held that

there was no substantial evidence that the appellant had entered the residence or remained

unlawfully therein with the purpose to commit a crime where the evidence merely showed

that he was seen inside the open door of the residence.

Unlike Wortham, there was proof in this case that Williams entered Bankston’s house

and unlawfully remained there with the purpose to commit a crime against Patillo. Purpose

can be established by circumstantial evidence, and this is often the only type of evidence

available to show intent. Holland v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 49, 510 S.W.3d 311. The proof

viewed in the light most favorable to the State showed that Williams noticed Patillo’s car

parked outside the residence; Williams accused Bankston of planning to take Patillo with

her to Florida; Bankston told Williams to leave but Williams shoved her aside and entered

the house; and upon entry Williams immediately attacked Patillo by tackling him and

striking him repeatedly. Then, as Williams was attacking Patillo, Bankston again told

Williams to leave but he refused and continued the attack. Because there was substantial

evidence to support the jury’s finding that Williams entered or remained unlawfully in the

5
house with the purpose to commit a third-degree battery, Williams’s sufficiency challenge

fails.1

Affirmed.

WHITEAKER and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Potts Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

1
Although in the conclusion section of Williams’s brief he asks that his convictions be
reversed, the only argument developed in his brief challenges the proof of residential
burglary. Williams does not make an argument challenging the proof of third-degree
battery, and thus we need not address that conviction.
6