Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-12023 No. 6441
03-29-2017
TREVOR HANK RANDALL WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Michael H. T. Graper, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Elizabeth F. Crail, Assistant District Attorney, Fairbanks, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court No. 4FA-13-1843 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the Superior Court, Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Jane F. Kauvar, Judge. Appearances: Michael H. T. Graper, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Elizabeth F. Crail, Assistant District Attorney, Fairbanks, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock, Superior Court Judge. Judge MANNHEIMER.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d). --------
Trevor Hank Randall Williams appeals his conviction for second-degree robbery, AS 11.41.510(a). He contends that the evidence presented at his trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction.
When an appellate court evaluates the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, we must view the evidence (and the inferences that could reasonably be drawn from that evidence) in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict. We then ask whether, viewing the evidence in this light, the evidence is sufficient to convince a reasonable juror that the State had proved its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Bergman v. State, 366 P.3d 542, 542-43 (Alaska App. 2016).
The evidence in Williams's case (viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict) supports the conclusions that Williams beat another man senseless, rifled through his clothes, and took some of his possessions. This evidence was therefore sufficient to support a conviction for second-degree robbery.
The judgement of the superior court is AFFIRMED.