Title: Jordan v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Timothy Bryan JORDAN v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-871                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 27, 1997


1.   Criminal law -- revocation of probation -- factors to be
     considered. -- A trial court should not automatically revoke
     probation simply because the defendant cannot pay his fine,
     without first determining that the defendant failed to make
     sufficient bona fide efforts to pay or that adequate
     alternative forms of punishment did not exist; matters that
     should be considered by a court reviewing revocation of a
     probationary sentence for failure to pay restitution include
     consideration of the defendant's employment status, earning
     ability, financial resources, the willfulness of the
     defendant's failure to pay, and any other special
     circumstances that may have a bearing on the defendant's
     ability to pay.

2.   Criminal law -- determination must be made that failure to pay
     is willful -- when probation may be revoked. -- Where there is
     no determination that the failure to pay restitution is
     willful, a probationer cannot be punished by imprisonment
     solely because of a failure to pay; a defendant's failure to
     make bona fide efforts to seek employment or to borrow money
     to pay restitution may justify imprisonment; probation may be
     revoked if the trial court finds by a preponderance of the
     evidence that the defendant inexcusably failed to comply with
     a condition of probation. 

3.   Appeal & error -- argument not made at trial -- argument not
     reached on appeal. -- Where appellant's argument was not made
     to the trial court it was not addressed on appeal; even
     constitutional arguments are waived when they are not argued
     below.    

4.   Appeal & error -- issue not reached -- case remanded on other
     grounds. -- Appellant's argument that the trial court abused
     its discretion in ordering the sentences to run consecutively
     was not reached because the case was remanded on other
     grounds.

5.   Criminal law -- no record of determination that appellant's
     failure to pay restitution was result of willful failure to
     pay -- judgment revoking probation reversed and remanded. --
     Where there were no findings as to appellant's total earnings,
     what employment he was able to secure for what period of time,
     whether he owned an automobile or other property, or whether
     he had access to resources of his own which he willfully
     refused to apply to the payment of restitution, nor was
     appellant's indigent status addressed in the record of this
     case, there was no determination that appellant's failure to
     pay restitution was the result of a willful refusal to pay,
     rather than an inability to pay, and the judgment revoking the
     probation was reversed and the case remanded.


     Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; H.A. Taylor, Judge;
reversed and remanded.
     Maxie G. Kizer, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Brad Newman, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     The primary issue in this case is whether the trial court's
order revoking probation and sentencing appellant to serve thirty-
five years in prison meets the test of fundamental fairness
required under the Due Process Clause when there have been no
findings of fact upon which to base a judicial determination that
the failure to pay court-ordered restitution was a willful refusal
to comply with the court order, and not the result of appellant's
inability to pay.  We have concluded that the due process
requirement of fundamental fairness has not been met, and the case
is reversed and remanded.
     The appellant, Timothy Bryan Jordan, was charged with crimes
of residential burglary, theft of property, and two counts of theft
by receiving.  Based upon a plea bargain with the State, Jordan
entered a guilty plea to the four counts on March 21, 1995.  The
trial court deferred further proceedings and placed Jordan on
probation for five years conditioned in part on the payment of
$7,312.50 in restitution to Mr. Alfred Helvey.  In agreeing to the
plea bargain, the State recognized that its interest in punishment
and deterrence did not require imprisonment, but would be satisfied
by probation and restitution.  The probation order states, "If the
defendant successfully completes his period of probation this
record will be expunged on application therefor."
     Jordan did not report to his probation officer and failed to
make any payments, and the State petitioned to revoke probation. 
A hearing on the State's motion to revoke was held on August 9.  At
this hearing, Jordan asserted that he could catch up with the
required restitution by paying $500 a month, based upon earnings of
$200 to $300 per week from a lawn service company.  He testified
that his living expenses were only $30 to $35 a week.  The hearing
was adjourned and reconvened on August 25.
     By the August 25 hearing, Jordan was no longer working for the
lawn service company, but his father testified that he would help
him find a job.  The trial court advised Jordan that,
notwithstanding the urging by the State and the probation officer
that the probation be revoked, "This court is far more interested
in seeing that Mr. Helvey gets his money back than he is in
sentencing you in the Department of Correction."  The trial court
then informed Jordan's father that the young man would need a lot
of support from his father, his grandmother, and other friends to
meet the restitution schedule of $500.00 per month for seven
consecutive months, commencing in September, followed by payments
of $100 per month until the restitution amount was paid. 
     The court next convened on December 11 to review progress made
toward restitution.  Only one payment of $500 had been made, with
the help of Jordan's grandmother.  Jordan claimed that he had hurt
his leg, had lost his job, and had been out of work for three
months.  He said that he had just gotten some equipment to begin
painting cars.  The court said, "I don't think you're going to make
it, Mr. Jordan . . . I think you've got more than you can say grace
over . . . You need to go on down."  Jordan's probation officer
testified that he had been reporting as required by the order, that
he had not tested positive for drugs, that he had no outstanding
charges against him, and that his only violation was nonpayment of
restitution, which was then in arrears by $1,000.
     Jordan was returned to jail and on January 9, 1996, the final
hearing was held.  The trial court opened the hearing by advising
him, "Mr. Jordan, apparently, you're not going to receive any kind
of assistance from your family or friends.  The Court was in hope
that somebody would come forward to give you some assistance, but
apparently that's not going to be."  Mr. Helvey, the victim, was
then called as a witness and urged the court to impose the maximum
sentence.  Jordan then pleaded with the court for another chance,
stating that he might be able to get a loan of $1500 to $2000 to
apply to restitution, and the court replied that if he gets the
loan, "we might reconsider what we're going to do right now, Mr.
Jordan."  The trial judge then revoked probation and sentenced
Jordan to three ten-year terms and one five-year term in the
Arkansas Department of Correction, with the terms to run
consecutively.
     In Bearden v. Georgia,