Anthony Petties v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. App. 128

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: February 26, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 128 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-24-102

Opinion Delivered February 26, 2025

ANTHONY PETTIES APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT V. [NO. 66FCR-18-759]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE R. GUNNER DELAY, APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

Appellant Anthony Petties appeals the October 6, 2023 sentencing order of the

Sebastian County Circuit Court revoking his suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) and

sentencing him to thirty-seven years in the Arkansas Division of Correction. On appeal,

Petties argues that there was not sufficient evidence presented that he violated a term or

condition of his probation. We affirm.

On January 4, 2019, Petties pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with

the purpose to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of Xanax with the

purpose to deliver, and possession of marijuana. He was sentenced to five years’ SIS. That

SIS was revoked on September 30, 2020, and Petties was sentenced to three years in the

Arkansas Division of Correction plus seven years’ SIS. The terms and conditions of his SIS included that he not violate any state, federal, or municipal law and that he not possess any

firearms, marijuana, narcotics, or controlled substances.

On August 3, 2022, the State again filed a petition to revoke Petties’s SIS. That

petition was later amended on September 20, October 25, November 3, and May 17, 2023.

The final amended petition alleged that while on SIS, Petties was charged with two counts

of delivery of methamphetamine, one count of simultaneous possession of drugs and

firearms, possession of methamphetamine with purpose to deliver, possession of drug

paraphernalia 2nd offense, felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of

methamphetamine. It further alleged that he had also failed to pay his court costs and fees.

A hearing on the petition for revocation was held on October 5, 2023. At that

hearing, Detective Richard Proctor testified about two controlled buys that the police

department set up. He testified that he was familiar with Petties, and he monitored the buys

in real time as a confidential informant (CI) made purchases from Petties. The purchases

were packaged and sent to the state crime lab and were later identified as methamphetamine.

The CI testified that she had purchased methamphetamine from Petties in the past and that

for both controlled buys she participated in, she went to Petties’s residence and purchased

drugs from him: “He handed me the drugs and I handed him the money and I went on out.”

Detective Keith Shelby also testified. He testified that, while executing a warrant on Petties,

he conducted a parole search on Petties’s hotel room. He located syringes, a meth pipe,

digital scales with residue, and a handgun. Petties’s brother was also in the room. Officer

Lauren Hendricks testified that while she and other officers conducted a search of Petties’s

2 room. Petties was asleep on a bed, and when they rolled him over, they found a syringe.

They also found a pipe in the room that, according to the state-crime-lab report, had

methamphetamine residue on it. At the close of the evidence, the circuit court found that

the State had met its burden of proof and sentenced Petties to thirty-seven years’

imprisonment. This appeal followed.

To revoke an SIS, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that

the defendant has inexcusably violated a condition of the probation or suspension. Springs v.

State, 2017 Ark. App. 364, at 3, 525 S.W.3d 490, 492. The State’s burden of proof in a

revocation proceeding is lower than that required to convict in a criminal trial, and evidence

that is insufficient for a conviction may be sufficient for a revocation. Id. The State does not

have to prove every allegation in its petition, and proof of only one violation is sufficient to

sustain a revocation. Mathis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 49, at 3, 616 S.W.3d 274, 277. We will

uphold the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the

evidence. Id. Because the determination of a preponderance of the evidence turns on

questions of credibility and weight to be given to the testimony, we defer to the circuit court’s

superior position to do so. Burgess v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 54, at 6.

There is sufficient evidence that Petties violated the condition of his SIS that he not

possess a controlled substance. Two witnesses testified about two controlled buys wherein

Petties sold methamphetamine. The CI stated that Petties handed her the drugs. “Controlled

substance” means a drug, substance, or immediate precursor in Schedules I through VI. Ark.

Code Ann. § 5-64-101(4) (Repl. 2024), and methamphetamine is a Schedule II controlled

3 substance. See 007.07.2 Ark. Admin. Code (WL current through Dec. 15, 2024); see also Ark.

Code Ann. § 5-64-419(b)(1) (Repl. 2024) (identifying methamphetamine as a Schedule II

controlled substance).

Petties argues that there was no video of the exchange of money or drugs, and “the

entirety of the evidence of the transaction came from the confidential informant, who was

compensated for allegedly completing the delivery, and who had previously been convicted

of filing false police reports.” This court, however, does not weigh the evidence or assess the

credibility of the witnesses; that lies within the province of the trier of fact. Strom v. State, 348

Ark. 610, 614, 74 S.W.3d 233, 235 (2002). We are bound by the fact-finder’s determination

on the credibility of witnesses. Id. Likewise, we have long held that the trier of fact is free to

believe all or part of a witness’s testimony. Id. A preponderance of the evidence supports the

finding that Petties inexcusably violated a condition of his SIS. We affirm.

Affirmed.

VIRDEN and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.

James Law Firm, by; William O. “Bill” James, Jr., and Drew Curtis, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: James Hill, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.