Court Opinion

ID: 9892882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 14:06:58.565099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:55.257034
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 474
                     ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION III
                                        No. CR-23-54

                                               Opinion Delivered October 25, 2023

TIMOTHY RILEY                                  APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
                              APPELLANT        COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN
                                               DISTRICT
V.                                             [NO. 16JCR-21-703]

                                               HONORABLE CHRIS THYER,
STATE OF ARKANSAS                              JUDGE
                                APPELLEE
                                               AFFIRMED

                          STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

          Timothy Riley appeals from the Craighead County Circuit Court’s order revoking his

probation and sentencing him to six years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On

appeal, Riley argues that the circuit court erred in revoking his probation, alleging that the

State did not present evidence sufficient to prove that he failed to lead a law-abiding life. We

affirm.

          On April 26, 2022, Jonesboro Police Officer Jacob Lowry was on routine patrol in a

high drug area when he observed the car in which Riley was a passenger. Officer Lowry ran

the license plate of the car and found that it was not covered by insurance. He initiated a

traffic stop and obtained the driver’s license of the occupants, Tasha Hill and Timothy Riley.

A check of Riley’s driver’s license revealed Riley was on probation after pleading guilty to
Class D felony possession of a firearm by certain persons six months earlier. Hill was asked

if she consented to a search of her vehicle, which she granted. A 9mm handgun was located

in the center console. Officer Lowry then searched both Riley and Hill. Officer Lowry found

a small bag of suspected cocaine in Riley’s pants pocket. Officer Lowry explained that when

he first found the cellophane bag commonly called a “corner bag,” he called it a “bag of

meth.” But Riley corrected him, telling him, “That’s not meth. That’s powder,” which is a

street term for cocaine. Officer Lowry found hydrocodone in Hill’s wallet and oxycodone

was found in a pill bottle on Hill’s person. Riley told Officer Lowry that “anything found in

the car” belonged to him. At the scene, Hill claimed that Riley had handed her the pill

bottle and told her to hide it.        When asked, Riley made another statement taking

responsibility for the pills in Hill’s possession.

       A hearing was held on the petition for revocation on October 6, 2022. The circuit

court took judicial notice of the case file, including Riley’s sentencing order and the signed

terms and conditions of his probation. The conditions included prohibitions on possessing

controlled substances, possessing firearms, and committing new criminal offenses. Riley

chose to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify at the revocation hearing.

       A circuit court may revoke a defendant’s probation prior to expiration if the court

finds that the defendant inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his or her

probation. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308 (Supp. 2015); Miller v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 554,

at 11, 386 S.W.3d 65, 71. Evidence that would be insufficient for a new criminal conviction

may be sufficient for the revocation of probation. Lamb v. State, 74 Ark. App. 245, 45 S.W.3d

                                                 2
869 (2001). The State bears the burden of proof, but it needs only prove that the defendant

committed one violation of the conditions of probation. Major v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 501,

at 4. In Ferguson v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 4, at 3, 479 S.W.3d 588, 590, we explained that

“on appeal, we will not reverse the trial court’s decision to revoke unless it is clearly

erroneous, or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.” Moreover, we must defer

to the superior position of the trial court to determine questions of credibility and the weight

to be given the evidence. Id., 479 S.W.3d at 590.

       A preponderance of the evidence is convincing evidence that is more probably

accurate and true when weighed against the evidence opposed to it. E.g., Sivils v. State, 2021

Ark. App. 198, at 3, 623 S.W.3d 138, 140. Motions for directed verdict are challenges to

the sufficiency of the evidence. Benson v. State, 357 Ark. 43, 160 S.W.3d 341 (2004); Holland

v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 49, 510 S.W.3d 311.

       Riley argues there was insufficient evidence to tie him to the actual possession of the

firearm and to the illegal substances found during the search following the traffic stop, and

the finding that he was in constructive possession of the firearm could only be speculation

or conjecture. However, the State has the burden of proof but need only prove one violation

of the conditions of probation. Robinson v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 579, 446 S.W.3d 190. In

this case, Officer Lowry’s undisputed testimony that appellant had in his possession a plastic

bag of white powder that Riley admitted was cocaine was alone sufficient to support the

revocation of his probation.

                                               3
       The court did not specify the conditions that were found to support revocation but

made a blanket announcement that Riley had violated the terms and conditions of his

probation and sentenced him to six years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. In

Wiley v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 490, at 5, 655 S.W.3d 751, 754 (citing Stewart v. State, 2018

Ark. App. 306, at 3, 550 S.W.3d 916, 918), the court stated, “[W]hen multiple new crimes

are alleged, and the circuit court made no specific findings as to which offense it relied on,

we will affirm if there is sufficient evidence to establish as least one of the alleged violations.”

In this case, we find the possession of the cocaine taken from Riley’s pocket was sufficient to

establish violation of at least one of the conditions of probation.

       Affirmed.

       VIRDEN and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.

       Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                                 4