and theft. It is beyond question that the jury was free to consider appellant’s confession, through the testimony of Captain Finch, and give it whatever weight they felt was appropriate. Leach v. State, 38 Ark.App. 117, 831 S.W.2d 615 (1992). Moreover, the presence of an accused in the proximity of a crime, opportunity, and association with a person — or persons— involved in a crime in a manner suggestive of joint participation are relevant factors in determining the connection of an accomplice with the crime. Westbrook v. State, 2009 Ark.App. 723, 2009 WL 3644215. Additionally, possession of recently stolen property coupled with proof of an accused’s proximity to the crime constitutes substantial evidence of the crime of burglary. Daniels v. State, 308 Ark. 53, 821 S.W.2d 778 (1992) (<HOLDING>)- The State maintains that appellant’s
holding that the property owners testimony alone placed the value of the stolen property above the amount necessary to constitute grand larceny holding larceny conviction was a violation of bar against double jeopardy where defendant was acquitted of larceny at first trial but at retrial was convicted of larceny and burglary holding that possession of stolen property is proper circumstance to consider in determining whether there was evidence tending to connect defendant with crimes of burglary and grand larceny holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary holding that a defendant with prior felony convictions including possession of a dangerous weapon possession of a controlled substance receiving stolen property and attempted burglary was properly sentenced as a career offender