Court Opinion

ID: 9382959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 14:02:40.141245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.555565
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 170
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                          DIVISION IV
                                          No. CR-22-493

 JUDRIKA HOUSTON, JR.                             Opinion Delivered March   29, 2023
                                    APPELLANT
                                                  APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
                                                  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
 V.                                               SMITH DISTRICT
                                                  [NO. 66FCR-17-1762]
 STATE OF ARKANSAS
                                     APPELLEE HONORABLE R. GUNNER DELAY,
                                              JUDGE

                                                  AFFIRMED

                            RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

       Judrika Houston, Jr., appeals the Sebastian County Circuit Court order revoking his

suspended sentence. On appeal, Houston argues that the State presented insufficient

evidence that he violated his suspended sentence by committing first-degree battery and felon

in possession of a firearm. We affirm.

       On July 26, 2018, Houston pled guilty to second-degree battery and fleeing on foot.

He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and four years’ suspended sentence. On June

2, 2021, the State petitioned to revoke Houston’s suspended sentence, alleging that he had

committed first-degree battery and felon in possession of a firearm and that he had failed to

pay fees, fines, and court costs.
       The court held a revocation hearing on June 9. At the hearing, Nichols Efurd testified

that he is a patrol officer with the Fort Smith Police Department and that on May 24, 2021,

he responded to a call concerning a shooting at Allied Gardens on 5221 Johnson Street. He

explained that before he arrived at the address, William Braxton, a black male, waved him

down and asked for help. Efurd stated that Braxton had a gunshot wound to his leg. He

testified that Braxton reported that a black male with dreadlocks wearing a white t-shirt and

black pants shot him and that the shooting occurred in apartment 55.

       Margo Chestnut testified that she lived at Allied Gardens in apartment 67. She stated

that she had not been in apartment 55 on May 24, 2021, but she admitted that she had

spoken with the police. She further explained that on that day, she heard a gunshot and then

saw an infrared light and a man waving a gun. She described the man as tall and black with

“short-like dreads,” and she stated that the man did not look like Houston. The prosecutor

asked Chestnut, “Do you remember talking to me and telling me today that you saw Judricka

Houston with the firearm?” Chestnut responded, “I know a Rico. I did not know no Judricka

Houston.”

       Sergeant Randy Stanley testified that he responded to the May 24 shooting at Allied

Gardens. He explained that the dispatcher described the shooter as a black male with

“dreads” wearing a white shirt and black pants. He stated that he saw Houston that night

after he had been arrested and that Houston was wearing a white t-shirt with black pants. He

testified that another officer initially located Houston fifty or sixty feet from apartment 55

near apartment 87 and that he later located a silver firearm equipped with a laser outside the

                                              2
window of apartment 87. Sergeant Stanley further stated that he spoke with Chestnut on

the night of the shooting and that Chestnut reported that Houston became upset about

losing keys and shot Braxton with a silver glock-type firearm equipped with a laser.1

       At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that the State had proved by a

preponderance of the evidence that Houston had violated his suspended sentence. In

making its finding, the court found Chestnut’s statement at the scene more credible than

her in-court statement. The court sentenced Houston to eight years’ imprisonment. This

appeal followed.

       To revoke a suspended sentence, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of

the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of the

suspension. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2021). We do not reverse a circuit court’s

decision to revoke unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Garrin v.

State, 2022 Ark. App. 342, 652 S.W.3d 608. Because the burdens of proof are different,

evidence that is insufficient for a criminal conviction may be sufficient for a revocation. Id.

Since determinations of a preponderance of the evidence turn on questions of credibility

and weight to be given testimony, we defer to the circuit court’s superior position. Justice v.

State, 2023 Ark. App. 14.

       1
        The State did not present evidence that Houston failed to pay fines, fees, and court
costs. After the State rested, the prosecutor asked to reopen the case to present evidence of
Houston’s failure to pay, but the court denied the motion.

                                              3
       On appeal, Houston argues that the State presented insufficient evidence that he

violated his suspended sentence by committing first-degree battery or felon in possession of

a firearm. He asserts that the evidence merely shows that it was a man named “Rico,” not

Houston, who shot Braxton with a firearm, and he points out that the only eyewitness to

testify, Chestnut, stated that Houston was not involved. He additionally asserts that the State

presented insufficient evidence of mens rea because there was no evidence that he acted with

a purpose to cause harm. He also argues that the State presented insufficient evidence that

he possessed a firearm because the officer merely located the gun in Houston’s vicinity.

       We hold that the State presented sufficient evidence that Houston violated his

suspended sentence by committing first-degree battery and felon in possession of firearm. As

to first-degree battery, a person commits first-degree battery if, with the purpose of causing

physical injury to another person, the person causes physical injury to any person by means

of a firearm. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-201(a)(8) (Supp. 2021). This court has frequently stated

that intent or state of mind is seldom capable of proof by direct evidence and must usually

be inferred from the circumstances of the crime. Hughes v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 378, 467

S.W.3d 170; Taylor v. State, 77 Ark. App. 144, 72 S.W.3d 882 (2002). Because of the

difficulty in ascertaining a defendant’s intent or state of mind, a presumption exists that a

person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts. Benton v. State, 2020 Ark.

App. 223, 599 S.W.3d 353.

       The testimony at the revocation hearing showed that on the night of the shooting,

Chestnut reported to an officer that Houston shot Braxton with a silver firearm equipped

                                              4
with a laser. An officer located Houston fifty to sixty feet away from where the shooting

occurred near apartment 87, and his clothing and appearance matched the description of

the assailant. Further, a silver firearm equipped with a laser was located outside apartment

87. Even though Chestnut’s in-court testimony differed from her statement at the scene, the

court found her statement on the day of the incident more credible, and we defer to the

circuit court for credibility determinations. As to intent, Chestnut reported that Houston

shot Braxton after he became angry about losing his keys. This is sufficient evidence given

the lesser standard of proof in a revocation proceeding. See Walls v. State, 2023 Ark. App.

49, 659 S.W.3d 741 (finding sufficient evidence of purposeful intent for first-degree

domestic battery for revocation of a suspended sentence when defendant became angry and

pointed a gun at his brother, shooting him twice).

       As to the crime of felon in possession of a firearm, Arkansas Code Annotated section

5-37-103(1) (Supp. 2021) provides that no convicted felon shall possess or own a firearm.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-1-102(15) defines “possess” as “to exercise actual

dominion, control, or management over a tangible object.” A showing of constructive

possession, which is the control or right to control the contraband, is sufficient to prove

possession of a firearm. White v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 587, 446 S.W.3d 193.

       The evidence supporting the first-degree-battery charge is also sufficient to support

the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm charge. Accordingly, given the lesser standard of proof in

a revocation hearing, we hold that the State presented sufficient evidence that Houston

                                              5
committed new offenses, and we affirm the circuit court’s revocation of Houston’s

suspended sentence.

      Affirmed.

      GLADWIN and THYER, JJ., agree.

      The Law Offices of David Powell, by: Caleb D. Ward, for appellant.

      Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                               6