Anastasia Gonzales v. State of Arkansas
This text of 2020 Ark. App. 219 (Anastasia Gonzales v. State of Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Date: Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 219 2021-06-15 17: 03:20 Foxit ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS PhantomPDF DIVISION I Version: 9.7.5 No. CV-19-787
ANASTASIA GONZALES Opinion Delivered: April 8, 2020
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NOS. 17CR-18-22 & 17CR-18-974]
HONORABLE GARY COTTRELL, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
MEREDITH B. SWITZER, Judge
Anastasia Gonzales appeals the Crawford County Circuit Court’s revocation of her
suspended imposition of sentences (SIS) in two criminal cases for the offenses of battery in
the second degree, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Gonzales was sentenced to six years in the Arkansas Department of Correction for each
offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, she argues that the circuit court
erred by requiring her to prove her failure to pay fines was not willful; that incarcerating a
defendant for failure to pay fines or costs violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the failure is the result of
an inability to pay; and that the circuit court erred in revoking her SIS due to her failure to
appear. We affirm.
On August 5, 2018, Gonzales received a six-year SIS after pleading guilty to battery
in the second degree in case no. 17CR-18-22 (17CR-18-22). She was assessed fines and costs and ordered to make payments of $65 per month. Her SIS was conditioned on, among
other things, her good behavior. The State filed a petition to revoke Gonzales’s SIS in
October 2018 for failure to pay fines and costs but withdrew that petition in January 2019
as a result of her guilty plea in case no. 17CR-18-974.
Gonzales pleaded guilty in 17CR-18-974 to one count of possession of
methamphetamine, one felony count of possession of drug paraphernalia, one misdemeanor
count of possession of marijuana, and one misdemeanor count of possession of drug
paraphernalia. On January 17, 2019, she was given six-year suspended sentences for
possession of methamphetamine and the felony count of possession of drug paraphernalia
and twelve-month suspended sentences for the misdemeanor counts of possession of
marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Conditions of her SIS included thirty days
of community service, suspension of her driver’s license for six months, and good behavior.
All suspended sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
On January 29, 2019, the State filed a petition to revoke Gonzales’s SIS in both
17CR-18-22 and 17CR-18-974 for failure to make payments toward her fines and costs
and for failure to report for community service. The revocation hearing was originally set
for March 27, 2019, but was reset for April 24 due to the circuit court’s grant of the State’s
motion for continuance. However, Gonzales failed to appear for the April 24 revocation
hearing; a warrant was issued for her arrest; and the revocation hearing was rescheduled for
July 3. On June 21, the State amended its revocation petition to add Gonzales’s failure to
appear as an additional basis for revoking her SIS.
2 After the July 3 revocation hearing, the circuit court found the State had proved by
a preponderance of the evidence that Gonzales had violated her SIS. On July 13 the circuit
court entered an order revoking Gonzales’s SIS and sentencing her to concurrent six-year
terms in the Arkansas Department of Correction for each of the offenses of battery in the
second degree, possession of methamphetamine, and felony possession of drug
paraphernalia. Gonzales filed a timely notice of appeal.
In order to revoke an SIS, the circuit court must find the State proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably violated a condition of
the suspension. Joseph v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 276, 577 S.W.3d 55. When multiple
violations are alleged, a circuit court’s revocation will be affirmed if the evidence is sufficient
to establish that the appellant violated any one condition of the SIS. Daniels v. State, 2019
Ark. App. 473, 588 S.W.3d 116. A circuit court’s revocation of an SIS will be affirmed on
appeal unless the decision is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. This
court defers to the circuit court’s determinations regarding witness credibility and the weight
to be accorded testimony. Id.
With regard to her failure to appear for her April 24 revocation hearing, Gonzales
admitted she knew she was supposed to be in court that day. However, she testified she
had to accompany her father to the hospital for his chemotherapy treatment that day. She
claimed she was unable to be in court at 8:30 a.m. because, even though her father’s
treatment began at 8:00 a.m., it lasted all day. She admitted her mother could have dropped
her off for court and then come back to get her, but instead she went with her father because
he asked her to do so.
3 Gonzales knew she was required to appear in court on April 24. She understandably
wanted to assist her ill father, yet there was no testimony that she attempted to notify the
court of her conflict or to have her hearing continued to later in the day or another day;
rather, she simply failed to appear for her revocation hearing even though she was aware of
the time and date. Given this evidence, we cannot say the circuit court erred in finding by
a preponderance of the evidence that Gonzales violated the terms and conditions of her SIS.
The State is required to prove only one violation to sustain a revocation, and because we
affirm on the basis of Gonzales’s failure to appear, it is unnecessary to address Gonzales’s
arguments concerning her ability to pay her fines and costs.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN and MURPHY, JJ., agree.
Scholl Law Firm, P.L.L.C., by: Scott A. Scholl, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2020 Ark. App. 219, 599 S.W.3d 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anastasia-gonzales-v-state-of-arkansas-arkctapp-2020.