Court Opinion

ID: 9960814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 14:02:56.629129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:54.910886
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 267
                           ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                            DIVISION II
                                           No. CR-23-513

 JIMMY WOODARD                                      Opinion Delivered April 17, 2024

                                    APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY
                                              CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT
 V.                                           [NO. 16JCR-18-952]

 STATE OF ARKANSAS                                  HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE

                                      APPELLEE AFFIRMED

                               WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

       Appellant Jimmy Woodard appeals the Craighead County Circuit Court’s sentencing order

revoking his suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) and sentencing him to twelve years’

imprisonment with an additional five years’ suspended imposition of sentence. 1 On appeal, he claims

there was insufficient evidence that he willfully violated the terms and conditions of his probation.

Specifically, he argues that there was no evidence that he had actual or constructive possession of

contraband. We affirm.

       On August 17, 2018, Woodard was charged by information with possession of more than

two but less than ten grams of methamphetamine in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-419.2 In

       1This is a companion case to another criminal case, Woodard v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 266, in
which Woodard was also placed on SIS. The circuit court held a combined revocation hearing on
both cases but issued separate sentencing orders in each case revoking Woodard’s SIS. He has filed
separate appeals, and today, we hand down opinions in both appeals.
       2   (Supp. 2023).
August 2019, Woodard entered a guilty plea, and the case was transferred to drug court with

sentencing deferred pending his compliance with the terms and conditions of drug court. On

October 6, 2020, the State filed a petition to terminate Woodard’s participation in drug court and

to impose sentence alleging that he had violated the terms and conditions of the drug-court program

by possessing a controlled substance and by failing to pay fines and court fees. The case was

transferred back to the circuit court.

       On October 22, 2020, Woodard was sentenced as a habitual offender to two years’

incarceration in the Community Correction Center with an additional five years’ suspended

sentence.3 As part of the terms and conditions of Woodard’s suspended sentence, he was prohibited

from committing a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and from using, selling, distributing,

or possessing any controlled substance.

       On November 29, 2022, the State filed a petition to revoke Woodard’s suspended sentence

alleging that he had violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence by committing the

following new offenses: possession of more than two but less than ten grams of methamphetamine;

tampering with physical evidence; and possession of drug paraphernalia. A supplemental revocation

petition was filed on February 1, 2023, alleging that Woodard had violated the terms of his SIS by

possessing less than two grams of methamphetamine on January 14.

       The circuit court held a hearing on the State’s revocation petition on April 6. This hearing

was combined with the revocation hearing in the companion case, Woodard, 2024 Ark. App. 266.

       3This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with Woodard’s sentence in the companion
case, 2024 Ark. App. 266.

                                                 2
The evidence presented at the revocation hearing has been detailed in our separate opinion in the

companion case.

       Because the facts, issues on appeal, and arguments presented here are identical to those

presented in the companion case, which we also hand down today, we find it unnecessary to restate

them herein.4 Furthermore, on the basis of our reasoning set forth in the companion case, we affirm

Woodard’s revocation.

       Affirmed.

       WOOD and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

       Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

       4   See Raino v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 337.

                                                     3