Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rolark v. State
Citations: 299 Ark. 299; 772 S.W.2d 588; 1989 Ark. LEXIS 315Docket: CR 88-209
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 26, 1989; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Charles Rolark was convicted of aggravated robbery and theft of property valued over $2500, receiving a 50-year sentence for aggravated robbery and a 10-year sentence for theft. He raised three points of appeal: 1. Rolark argued the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to recall the victim during the state's case. The court found no abuse of discretion, as the victim’s recall was justified to impeach Rolark's statement. 2. He contended his sentence should not have been enhanced under the habitual offender statute, asserting that his three prior felony convictions were part of a single course of conduct while he was on probation. The court upheld the trial court's determination that these were separate offenses, justifying their use for the habitual offender enhancement. 3. Rolark claimed that since the theft was part of the same continuous conduct as the aggravated robbery, he should only be convicted of one offense. The court ruled that theft and aggravated robbery are distinct offenses, permitting separate convictions even if arising from one incident. The evidence against Rolark was substantial, including testimony from the victim, who he attacked in a clothing store, and confessions he made to the police. The court affirmed the conviction, stating that the recall of the victim did not result in unfair prejudice and was appropriate for addressing the defendant's claims. No due process argument was presented at the trial court, and constitutional arguments cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The admissibility of the victim’s testimony for impeaching the defendant's statement was not addressed, as it was not argued; even if deemed inadmissible, it would not warrant reversal due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Rolark's sentence for aggravated robbery was enhanced to 50 years based on three prior convictions for breaking and entering, which occurred at different locations over a short time period. Rolark contended these should count as one offense for enhancement purposes, but the state argued, and the court agreed, that they were separate offenses. Previous case law indicated that similar conduct leading to multiple offenses does not qualify as a continuous course of conduct. Additionally, Rolark's argument that prior convictions resulting in probation should not count for enhancement was unsupported by legal authority and deemed unconvincing. Lastly, the court found that aggravated robbery and theft of property are distinct offenses, as aggravated robbery involves the use of force with the intent to commit theft, while theft occurs only upon taking the victim's property. The court affirmed the decision. Judge Purtle dissented.