Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 500
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-25-785
FRANK MCHENRY Opinion Delivered October 28, 2026
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. WESTERN DISTRICT
[NO. 16JCR-24-1065]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE SCOTT A. ELLINGTON,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Frank McHenry appeals his conviction for kidnapping from the Craighead County
Circuit Court. On appeal, McHenry argues that the circuit court erred by denying his motion
for a directed verdict. We affirm.
On September 26, 2024, the State filed a criminal information charging McHenry
with kidnapping and aggravated robbery. On June 23, 2025, the State amended the
information to also charge McHenry as a habitual offender with four or more prior felony
convictions.
On August 12, 2025, the court held a jury trial. At trial, Kimberly Gray testified that
she worked the night shift as a front-desk clerk at a hotel, and on August 27, 2024, a man
“robbed [her] at knife point.” She explained that the man put a knife to her throat and placed her in a chokehold, dragged her to the restroom, forced her to throw her phone on the floor,
pinned her against the restroom wall, and demanded the hotel’s money. Gray told him that
the money was in the register and that she had a key, and the man let her leave the restroom.
She stated that she unlocked the register and gave him the contents totaling $156.79. She
stated that the man returned her phone and left, and she called 911.
Officer Shane Williams testified that he works for the Jonesboro Police Department
and that he was dispatched to the hotel on August 27. He explained that he talked to Gray,
and she reported what happened. The State played Williams’s body-cam footage, and in the
recording, Gray stated that the man “locked [them]” in the bathroom.
Detective Michael Starnes testified that he investigated the hotel robbery and
obtained the hotel-surveillance video showing a man forcing Gray from the front desk and
into a room. He further stated that he received a tip from the Crime Stoppers program that
led to McHenry’s arrest. Starnes explained that he interviewed McHenry, who admitted to
his actions at the hotel because he was “hard up for cash.” At trial, the State played the hotelsurveillance footage and the recorded interview with McHenry.
At the conclusion of the State’s case, McHenry moved for a directed verdict as
follows:
At this time I’m going to move for directed verdict on behalf of the Defendant, Your
Honor, on both the counts of aggravated robbery and kidnapping. Defendant alleges
the State has failed to meet its burden of proof. That is as to all of the elements of the
crime, and based on the fact that the State has—we believe the State has not met their
burden, has not offered the evidence in the form of testimony or other evidence in
order to move forward, we’d ask the Court to dismiss the State’s case at this time.
2
The court denied the motion. McHenry did not call any witnesses and renewed his directedverdict motion, which was again denied.
The jury found McHenry guilty of both aggravated robbery and kidnapping, and he
was sentenced to thirty-five years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. This
appeal followed.
On appeal, McHenry argues that the circuit court erred by denying his directedverdict motion as to the kidnapping charge. He argues that the State presented insufficient
evidence that he employed any greater restraint on the victim than that normally incident to
aggravated robbery.
We cannot address McHenry’s argument because it is not preserved for our review.
Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1(b) requires that a directed-verdict motion based
on insufficient evidence must specify in what manner the evidence is deficient. See Merchant
v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 576, 532 S.W.3d 136. A motion merely stating that the evidence is
insufficient does not preserve issues concerning a specific deficiency. Id. Rule 33.1 is to be
strictly construed. Pinell v. State, 364 Ark. 353, 219 S.W.3d 168 (2005). The reasoning behind
Rule 33.1 “is that when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the
circuit court can either grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow the State to reopen its
case and supply the missing proof.” Id. at 357, 219 S.W.3d at 171. Another reason the
motion must be specific is that the appellate courts cannot decide an issue for the first time
on appeal. Id.
3
In this case, because McHenry’s directed-verdict motion did not specify in what
manner the State’s proof was insufficient, his argument on appeal is not preserved for
appellate review. Accordingly, we must affirm his conviction for kidnapping.
Affirmed.
BARRETT and MURPHY, JJ., agree.
Dusti Standridge, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4