Opinion ID: 1426463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Comply with Terms of Probation

Text: Appellant asserts that the basis for revocation in this case was not his fault, that the evidence showed that he had been an exemplary probationer, and that the trial court noted that he was tremendously rehabilitated. Citing Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d), he argues that he did not inexcusably fail to comply with a condition of his probation. We agree. The term inexcusable is defined as incapable of being excused or justifiedSyn. unpardonable, unforgivable, intolerable. Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary 977 (1996). Certainly, the facts of this case are unique, and the resulting six-year prison term is unduly harsh. Appellant was a model probationer whom the trial court admitted was tremendously rehabilitated. He was incorrectly given a driver's license by the State, although he only attempted to obtain an identification card in order to get a marriage license. Appellant relied upon the revenue office clerk's information that his driver's license was not suspended; and, although he did drive during the period of his probation, he received no traffic citations and committed no further criminal activity. He complied with every other term of his probation. Surely, his reliance upon the State revenue office that he was allowed to have a driver's license, after he asked the clerk to check again to be sure, would constitute forgivable, pardonable, excusable behavior for his failure to strictly comply with the terms of his probation. As such, given the unique facts of this case, we reverse and remand the case to the trial court, thereby reversing and remanding the court of appeals' opinion. Reversed and remanded. GLAZE, BROWN, and IMBER, JJ., dissent.