Ashley Lynne Hull v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2019 Ark. App. 505
Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Perry
Date: 2022.08.05 10:49:45 DIVISION III
-05'00' No. CR-19-388
Adobe Acrobat version:
2022.001.20169
Opinion Delivered: October 30, 2019

ASHLEY LYNNE HULL
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE FRANKLIN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. NORTHERN DISTRICT
[NO. 24OCR-17-201]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE BILL PEARSON,
JUDGE

AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

Ashley Hull was convicted by a Franklin County Circuit Court jury of possession of

a controlled substance (cocaine), a Class D felony, and sentenced to eight years’

imprisonment as a habitual offender. She appeals her conviction, arguing that the evidence

was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that she purposely or knowingly possessed

cocaine. We affirm.

On October 8, 2017, Arkansas State Trooper Johnathan Bass initiated a traffic stop

on Hull’s car due to obstructed tags. Upon approaching the vehicle, Bass noticed an

“overwhelming” odor of marijuana coming from the inside of Hull’s car. Given the

circumstances, Bass informed Hull he was going to search the vehicle, at which point Hull

informed him she had a small amount of cocaine in the vehicle. From her purse, she then

produced a cigarette pack that contained a cellophane wrapper that had a white powder-
like substance inside. The chemist from the crime lab testified at Hull’s jury trial that the

substance was indeed cocaine. Hull did not testify, but in Bass’s dash-camera footage, which

was played for the jury, she explained that she found the cocaine in the backseat when she

had cleaned her car earlier and that she intended to get rid of it but never did.

After deliberation, the jury returned a guilty verdict for the offense of possession of

cocaine. Following the sentencing hearing, Hull was sentenced to eight years in the Arkansas

Department of Correction. From this conviction, Hull now timely appeals.

Rule 33.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure (2019) provides the

following in relevant part:

(a) In a jury trial, if a motion for directed verdict is to be made, it shall be
made at the close of the evidence offered by the prosecution and at the close of all
of the evidence. A motion for directed verdict shall state the specific grounds
therefor.

....

(c) The failure of a defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at the
times and in the manner required in subsections (a) and (b) above will constitute a
waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
verdict or judgment. A motion for directed verdict or for dismissal based on
insufficiency of the evidence must specify the respect in which the evidence is
deficient. A motion merely stating that the evidence is insufficient does
not preserve for appeal issues relating to a specific deficiency such as insufficient proof
on the elements of the offense. A renewal at the close of all of the evidence of a
previous motion for directed verdict or for dismissal preserves the issue of insufficient
evidence for appeal. If for any reason a motion or a renewed motion at the close of
all of the evidence for directed verdict or for dismissal is not ruled upon, it is deemed
denied for purposes of obtaining appellate review on the question of
the sufficiency of the evidence.

It is well settled that Rule 33.1 is strictly construed, and a defendant’s failure to adhere

to the requirements of Rule 33.1(a) will constitute a waiver of any question pertaining to

the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Akram v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 504,

2
at 2–3, 560 S.W.3d 509, 512. A general motion for directed verdict that merely asserts the

State has failed to prove its case is inadequate to preserve a sufficiency challenge for

appeal. Id.

Hull did not comply with the requirements of Rule 33.1 because she failed to move

for directed verdict at any time during the jury trial. In fact, during closing arguments, Hull’s

counsel relayed to the jury, “I’d be a fool if I got up here and told you she wasn’t guilty.

You know she’s guilty.” Accordingly, we hold that her sufficiency argument is not preserved

for our review.

Affirmed.

GLADWIN and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Ernie Witt, for appellant.

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

3