ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE
MONTE RASHAD GENTRY
STATE OF ARKANSAS
September 26, 2007
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON,
On appeal, Monte Rashad Gentry argues that there was insufficient evidence to
support his conviction for maintaining a drug premises and that he did not inexcusably violate
the terms of his probation. We affirm.
Appellant first asserts that the trial court erred in its denial of his directed-verdict
motion, which is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Coon v. State, 76 Ark. App.
250, 65 S.W.3d 889 (2001). On appeal, Gentry argues that the evidence supporting his
conviction under Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-64-402(a)(2) (Supp. 2005) (setting out
elements for drug-premises violation) is insufficient because the State failed to prove that he
kept or maintained a drug premises at 1505 Gum Street in North Little Rock, Arkansas.
In our review of Gentry’s claim, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial
was sufficiently forceful to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion. Goff v. State, 329
Ark. 513, 953 S.W.2d 38 (1997). Further, when deciding whether the evidence was sufficient,
we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering only the evidence
tending to support the guilty verdict. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 337 Ark. 196, 987 S.W.2d 694
The statute at issue in this appeal makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly keep
or maintain premises resorted to by a person for the purpose of using or obtaining controlled
substances or that is used for keeping controlled substances. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-402(a)(2).
In this case, Gentry seemingly concedes that he kept or maintained the drug premises
beginning on August 21, 2005 (the date he signed the rental application), but he argues that
because two controlled buys occurred before this date the State faile