Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 35

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CR-23-329

JASON HICKS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered January 17, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING 

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 30CR-22-311]

HONORABLE STEPHEN L. SHIRRON,

JUDGE

AFFIRMED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge 

Appellant Jason Hicks was found guilty by a Hot Spring County jury of failure to comply with 

sex-offender registration and reporting requirements, a Class C felony, in violation of Arkansas Code 

Annotated section 12-12-904. In an order filed on January 27, 2023, Hicks was sentenced to a term 

of ten years’ incarceration in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal, Hicks argues that 

the circuit court erred in denying his directed-verdict motion because the State failed to prove that 

he did not report a change of address. We affirm. 

On October 18, 2022, Hicks was charged by information with unlawfully violating the 

conditions of his sex-offender registration by failing to appear in person to report a change of address 

and by residing within two thousand feet of a school or daycare, against the peace and dignity of the 

State of Arkansas. 

A jury trial was held on January 26, 2023. Sergeant Jim Sanders, an investigator with the 

Union County Sheriff’s Office tasked with handling sex-offender registrations, testified that on May 
2

31, 2019, Hicks electronically signed a sex-offender verification form verifying his address and place 

of employment. Sergeant Sanders stated that Hicks also signed an acknowledgment form indicating 

that he understood the rules and regulations regarding registration, including the requirement to 

report changes of residence, mailing address, temporary domicile, employment, email, and social 

network information in person to the local enforcement agency having jurisdiction at the time of the 

change. Seargeant Sanders further testified that Hicks signed another verification form on February 

26, 2020, and that he had not had any contact with Hicks after that date. 

Sergeant Sanders testified that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were changes made 

to the reporting procedures. He stated there was a sex-offender check-in form in the front office for 

those people required to report to sign-in and leave a name and phone number; he would then get in 

touch and schedule a follow-up appointment. Sergeant Sanders expressed that the changes in 

reporting procedures did not prevent reporting and registering as required. Sergeant Sanders 

testified that Hicks’s name was never listed on the sign-in sheet; however, once he was provided 

information that Hicks was living in the Malvern area, he contacted Detective Jack Seely of the 

Malvern Police Department. 

Deanna Draper, office manager for Malvern Water Works, testified next. She stated that in 

May 2022, during the monthly meter readings, it was discovered that a vacant home located at 927 

Edward Street had water usage beginning April 17, although no one had established service at the 

address. On May 26, the water to the house was turned off, and the meter was locked. Shortly 

thereafter, on June 10, Hicks applied for water service at the 927 Edward Street address and paid the 

$150 deposit. A connect order was then issued, and water service was turned on; there has been 

ongoing water usage since that time. 
3

Jack Seely, a detective with the Malvern Police Department, testified that he served as the 

sex-offender coordinator for the city of Malvern. He received information indicating that Hicks, an 

out-of-compliance Level 3 sex offender, was living in Malvern but had not registered with the 

Malvern Police Department. Seely stated that a search revealed a driver’s license listing Hicks’s 

address as 927 Edward Street. A probable-cause affidavit was prepared, and officers went to the 

address and took Hicks into custody. Detective Seely testified that Hicks verified his sex-offender 

registration on September 20 with Jerry Norwood, the Hot Spring County sex-offender coordinator. 

According to Detective Seely, prior to the September verification, there was no record of Hicks 

registering his current address with the Malvern Police Department. 

Hicks moved for a directed verdict following the close of the State’s case. He argued that the 

State failed to prove that he failed to report a change of address. He contended that during the 

relevant time periods, the sex-offender-registration offices were not functioning full time and that 

because the officers were relying on others to relay messages, information could have been lost. The 

State countered that the offices had procedures in place to ensure that people could register if they 

sought to do so. The circuit court denied the directed-verdict motion. The defense rested without 

calling any witnesses and renewed the directed-verdict motion, which was again denied. Hicks was 

convicted of failure to comply with sex-offender registration and reporting requirements and 

sentenced to ten years in prison. He now appeals. 

On appeal, Hicks challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. He 

specifically argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because the 

evidence was insufficient to establish that he failed to report a change of address as required of sex 

offenders. 
4

We treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.1 

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict.2 We will affirm a 

judgment of conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it.3 Substantial evidence is evidence 

of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way 

or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture.4 We defer to the jury’s determination 

on the matter of witness credibility.5 Jurors do not and need not view each fact in isolation; rather,

they may consider the evidence as a whole.6 The jury is entitled to draw any reasonable inference 

from circumstantial evidence to the same extent that it can be from direct evidence.7 The jury may 

resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence and may choose to believe the 

State’s account of the facts rather than the defendant’s.8 We need only consider testimony that 

supports the guilty verdict.9 Circumstantial evidence may provide the basis for a conviction if it is 

 

1Kelley v. State, 103 Ark. App. 110, 286 S.W.3d 746 (2008). 

2

Id. 

3

Id. 

4

Id. 

5

Id. 

6

Id. 

7

Id.

8Dunn v. State, 371 Ark. 140, 264 S.W.3d 504 (2007). 

9Holcomb v. State, 2014 Ark. 141, 432 S.W.3d 600. 
5

consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable explanation of the 

crime.10

A sex offender is required to register and to report in person any change of address.11 When 

establishing a new residency or temporary domicile at the new address, a sex offender is required to 

provide notice to the supervising authority no later than five calendar days before doing so. A sex 

offender who fails to register or report as required is guilty of a Class C felony.12 The failure to 

register is a strict-liability offense.13 

Here, there is no dispute that Hicks was required to register as a sex offender and comply 

with all reporting requirements. The testimony elicited at trial established that Hicks moved from 

Union County to Malvern in or around June 2022, at the latest, according to the date he applied for 

water service at a Malvern address. The sex-offender statutes require sex offenders to report a change 

of address within five days of moving to the new residence. Hicks failed to do so. Notably, on appeal, 

Hicks does not argue that he reported as required; instead, he contends that it is possible, with the 

changes in reporting procedures, for information to be lost. Accordingly, viewing the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the State, we find substantial evidence supports the verdict and affirm the 

circuit court’s finding that Hicks failed to comply with sex-offender registration requirements. 

Affirmed. 

 

10Robinson v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 240, 491 S.W.3d 481. 

11See Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-904(a)(1)(A)(i), (ii) (Supp. 2019).

12Allen v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 84, 596 S.W.3d 518.

13Id.
6

BARRETT and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Gregory Crain, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.