Cit e as 2014 A rk . A p p

. 19



## ARKANS AS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No. CR-13-502

JOH NNY WILLIAMS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE Opinion Delivered January 15, 2014

APPEAL FROM TH E DREW

COU NTY CIRCU IT COU RT

[NO. CR-2011-50-3B ]

H ONORAB LE SAM POPE, JU DGE

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO

WITH DRAW GRANTED

ROBERT J. GLADWI N, Chi ef Judge

Jo h n n y W illiam s ap p e als t he M ay 7, 2 013 re vo c at io n o f h is p ro b at i on in t h e D re w

Co u n t y Circ u it Co u rt

, an d at t h e sam e t im e

, h is co u n se l se e k s w it h d raw al, urgin g t h is c o u rt

t o f in d n o me rit to th e ap p e al. W e af f i r m t h e r e v oc at io n an d gran t c ou n se l’s m o t io n to

w it hd raw

.

A p p ellan t p le d gu ilt y o n Jan u ary 1, 2011, to r e sid e nt i al b u rglary an d t h e f t o f p ro p ert y

a n d w as se n t e n ce d t o c o n c u rre n t t e rm s o f t h irt y-six m o n t hs’ p ro b at io n o n e ac h co u n t

. A

re vo c at io n p e t it io n w as f i le d on Ju ly 9, 2 012, alle gin g t h at ap p e ll a n t h a d v i o lat e d t h e

f o llo w in g c o n d i t i o n s o f h is p ro b at io n : (# 1) n o t c o m m it tin g a c rim e p u n i sh ab le b y

c o n f in e m e n t in jail o r p riso n ; (# 10) re p o r t in g t o his p ro b at io n o f f ic e r; (# 11) p ayin g h is

p ro b at io n ary f

e e s; (# 15) p ayin g h is c o u rt c o st s; an d (# 16) p ayin g t h e D N A t e st in g f e e

. T h e

p ro b at io n o ff

ic e r’s vio lat i o n r e p o rt in c lu d e d t he alle gat io n t h at ap p e llan t w as arre st e d o n M ay

25, 2012, f

o r b u rglary an d f

e lo n in p o sse ssio n o f a f

ire arm

, alo n g w it h t h e alle gat io n t h at h eCit e as 2014 A rk . A p p

. 19

vio lat e d e ac h of t he c on d it io n s as list e d ab o ve

. A n id e n t ic al r e vo c at io n p e t it io n w as f ile d o n

Jan u ary 28, 2013.

A t t h e h e arin g o n M ay 3

, 2013, p r o b at io n o f f ic e r A lliso n B ish o p t est if ie d th at

ap p e llan t d id n o t re p o r t i n F e b r u ary an d M arc h o f 2012, a n d h a d n o t re p o rt e d sin c e M ay

2012. S h e also t e st if

ie d th at ap p e llan t w as b e hin d in h is p aym e n t s on h i s c o u rt c o st s. Sh e

ad m it t e d o n c ro ss-e xam in at i o n t hat h ad ap p e llan t n o t re c e ive d a n e w c rim in al c h arge

, sh e

w o u l d n o t h ave f

ile d a re vo c at io n p e t it io n b ase d o n h i s f ailu re t o re p ort in F e b ru ary an d

M arc h 2 012. H o w e ve r, sh e t e st if ie d t h at ap p e llan t w as in c arc e r at e d o n t h at n e w c h arge f ro m

M ay t h ro u gh S e p t e m b er 2012, b u t h ad n o t re p o rt e d t o h e r sin ce Se p t e mb e r 2, 2012.

A p p ellan t t e st if

ie d t hat it w as t ru e t hat h e d id n ot re p o rt in F eb r u ary an d M arc h 2012.

H e also st at e d o n c ro ss-e x am in at io n t h at he d id n o t m e et w i t h h i s p r o b at io n o f f ic e r as

re q u ire d . H e e xp lain e d t hat h e d id n o t re p o rt af t er Se p t e mb e r 2012 b e cau se a p e t it io n f o r

re vo c at io n h ad b e e n f

ile d

, an d h e d id n o t b e lie ve h e w as r e q u ire d t o d o so

. H e f u rt he r st at e d

t hat h e w as c urre n t ly in jail af t e r b e in g p ic k ed u p o n a w arran t f o r f ailin g t o a p p e a r f

o r a

c o u rt d at e

.

T h e t rial c ou r t f

o u nd t h at t h e St at e p ro ve d t hat ap p e llan t vio l at e d t h e c o n d it io n s o f

h is p ro b at io n b y f

ailin g t o re p o rt

. T h e c o u rt also f ou n d t h at h e had n o t p aid h i s su p e rvisio n

f e e s, c o u rt c o st s, o r D N A f e e s. A c c o rd i n gly, ap p e llan t ’s p ro b at io n w as re vo k e d an d h e w as

se n t en c e d t o t e n ye ars’ im p riso n me n t

.

Pu rsu an t t o A nd e r

s v. Califor nia

, 386 U .S. 738 (1967), an d Ru le 4-3(k ) (2013) o f t h e

Ru le s of th e A r k a n s as Su p re m e Co u rt an d Co u rt o f A p p e als, ap p e llan t ’s c o un se l f ile d a

2Cit e as 2014 A rk . A p p

. 19

m o t io n t o w it h d raw o n t h e gro un d t h at ap p e l lan t ’s ap p eal is w h o lly w it h ou t m e rit

. T h e

m o t io n is ac c o m p a n ie d b y an ab st rac t an d ad d e n d u m o f t h e p ro c e e d i n gs b e lo w

, in c lu d in g

all o b je c t io n s an d m ot io n s d ec id e d ad ve rse ly t o a p p e l l a n t

, an d a b rie f in w h ic h c o u nse l

e xp lain s w h y t h e r e is n o t h in g in t he re c o rd th at w ou ld su p p o rt an ap p e al. T h e c le rk o f t h is

c o u rt p ro vid e d ap p e llan t w it h a c o p y o f h is co u n se l’s b rie f an d n o t if ie d h i m o f h is righ t to

f ile a p ro se st at e m e n t o f p o in t s fo r re ve r sal w it h i n t h irt y d ays. A p p e llan t f ile d p ro se p o in t s,

an d th e St at e A t t o rn e y G e n eral f ile d a b rie f in re sp o n se

, as re q u ire d b y A rk an sas Su p re m e

Co u rt Ru le 4-3, in w h ic h it c o n c u rs t h at ap p e llan t ’s ap p e al is w it h o ut m e rit

.

In a h earin g t o re vo k e a p r o b at i o n o r su sp e nd e d im p o sit io n o f se nt en c e

, t h e St at e

m u st p ro ve it s c ase b y a p re p o n d e ran c e o f t h e e vid e n c e. H

ale y v. State

, 96 A rk

. A p p . 256,

240 S.W .3d 615 (2006). T o re vo k e p ro b at io n o r a su sp e n sio n, t h e c irc u it co u rt m u st f i n d

b y a p r e p o n d e ran c e o f

t h e e vid e n c e t h at t h e d e f e n d an t in e xc usab ly vio lat e d a c o n d it io n o f

t hat p r o b at io n o r su sp e n sio n

. A rk

. Co d e A n n

. § 5-4-309 (Re p l. 2 006); H al e y

, s u p r a

. T h e

St at e b e ars t h e b u rd en o f p ro o f

, b u t n e e d o n ly p ro ve t h at t h e d e f e n d an t c o m m it t e d o n e

vio lat io n of th e c o n d it io n s. H ale y

, sup r a

. W h e n ap p e alin g a re vo c at io n

, t h e ap p e llan t h as t h e

b u rd e n o f sh o w in g t h at t h e t rial c o u rt ’ s f in d in gs are c l e arly again st t h e p r e p o n d e ran c e o f t h e

e vid e n c e

. Id

. E vid e n c e t h at is in su f f ic ie n t f o r a c rim in al c o n vic tio n m ay b e su f f ic ie n t f o r t h e

re vo c at io n o f p ro b at io n o r su sp e n d e d se n t e n c e

. Id

. S i n c e t h e d e t e rm in at io n o f a

p re p o nd e ran c e of t h e e vid e n c e t u rn s o n q u e st io n s o f c r e d ib i l it y an d t h e w e igh t to b e give n

t est im o n y, w e d e fe r t o t he t rial ju d ge ’s su p erio r p o sit io n. Id

.

3Cit e as 2014 A rk . A p p

. 19

Co u n se l c on t e n d s t hat ap p e llan t ’s ap p e al p re se n t s n o issu e s o f m e r it

. H e p o in t s t o t h e

p r o b at io n o f

f ic e r’s t e st im o n y th at ap p e llan t faile d t o re p o r t t o h e r as w e ll as ap p e lla n t ’ s

t est im o n y t h at h e f

aile d t o re p ort

. Co u n se l argu e s t h at t h e trial c o u r t ’s ru lin g w as su p p o rt e d

b y su f f ic ie n t e vid en c e

.

A p p ellan t c laim s i n h is p ro se p o i n t s f o r re ve rsal t h at h e w as n ot re p re se nt e d c o rre c t ly

b y h is law ye r. H e also argu e s t h at t h e c rim in al c h arge s t h at in st igat e d t h e re vo c at io n p e t it io n

w e r e n o t p u rsu e d again st h im

. H e c o n t e n d s t h at t h e c irc u it ju d ge p re sid in g o ve r h is

re vo c at io n h e arin g w as n o t t h e sam e ju d ge w h o se n t e n c e d h im t o p ro b at io n

. H e also ac c u se s

t he t r ial ju d ge o f h avin g p e rso n al p ro b l em s an d exh ib it in g vio le n ce

. F in ally, h e co n t e n d s th at

t he re w e re mist ak e s in t h e p ap e rw o rk an d d isc re p an c ie s in t h e p ro b at io n of f i c er’s t e st im o n y

re gard in g h is ad d re ss an d t he last t im e h e re p o rt ed t o h er.

T h e St at e m ain t ain s t h a t n o n e o f ap p e llan t ’s p o in t s are p re se rve d o r h ave m e rit an d

h is re vo cat io n sh o u l d b e af f irm e d

. W e agre e

. Pu rsu an t t o M ac e v. S tate

, 2012 A rk

. Ap p

. 420,

_ _ _ S.W .3d

_

_ _ , ap p e llan t ’s in e f

f e c t ive -assist an c e -o f

-c o u nse l argu m e n t w as no t m ad e b e l o w

an d c an no t b e re ac h e d o n d ire c t ap p e al. W e also n ot e t h at ap p e l lan t ’ s argu m e n t re gard in g

h is n e w c rim in al c h arge is misp lac e d

, as t h e c rim in al ch arge w as w it h d r aw n as a b asis f o r

re vo c at io n p r i o r t o t h e h e arin g. A p p e llan t ’s argu m e n t re gard in g t he c irc u it ju d ge w as n ot

m ad e b e lo w an d n o t p re se r ve d f o r ap p ellat e re vie w

.

F in ally, vio lat io n o f an y o n e o f t h e c o n d it io n s o f p ro b at io n c an su p p o rt t h e

re vo c at io n

, an d w h e n a p art y ap p e alin g le av e s a n alt e rn at e

, in d e p e n d e n t gro u n d

u n ch alle n ge d

, t h e c i rc u it c o u rt ’s ru lin g m u st b e af f irm e d

. G asc a v. S tate

, 2013 A rk

. Ap p

. 214.

4Cit e as 2014 A rk . A p p

. 19

B e c au se ap p e l lan t d o e s n o t ad d re ss t h e gro u n d s fo u n d fo r vio lat io n o f c o n d it io n s n u m b e r e d

11, 15, an d 16, t h is c o u rt m u st af f irm

.

A f f irm ed ; m o t io n t o w it h d raw gran t e d

.

P I T T M A N an d W H I T E A K E R , JJ., agre e.

Gary W

. Potts , for appellant

.

Dustin McDaniel

, A tt ’y Gen., by: K aren V i rg inia W allace

, Ass’t A t t ’y Gen., for appellee.

5