¶1concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶2hi agree with the majority that the defendant’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon should be affirmed and that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial as untimely.
¶3However, I respectfully dissent from the reversal of the defendant’s conviction for armed robbery. In my opinion, the officers’ testimony regarding the reporting of the event coupled with the victim’s testimony supports the conviction under the Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) standard. The victim testified that the defendant came to collect money and that he did so while armed with a gun. Further, according to police, the defendant admitted using a gun to collect the money. The trial court found this latter testimony regarding the *640reporting of the event credible. As I find it inappropriate to reassess this evaluation on appeal, I conclude that, under the standard of review, the trial court could have found the essential elements of armed robbery proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I would also affirm the defendant’s conviction for armed robbery.
¶4As I would affirm both convictions, I concur in part and dissent in part.