Bedford v. State

2014 Ark. App. 239

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: April 23, 2014
• Docket: CR-13-879
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 239

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-13-879

Opinion Delivered April 23, 2014 TERESA BEDFORD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. CR-2004-140]

HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR., STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge

Teresa Bedford pled no contest to a charge of second-degree forgery, a Class C felony,

in 2004. She was sentenced as a habitual offender to a term of three years in the Arkansas

Department of Correction, followed by the suspended imposition of any additional sentence

for a period of ten years. In 2012, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s suspension,

alleging that she had violated its conditions by, inter alia, committing another act of forgery

and failing to pay court-ordered costs and fees. After a hearing in 2013, the trial court found

that appellant had inexcusably violated both of those conditions, revoked her suspension, and

sentenced her to seven years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency

of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding that she committed a new act of forgery.

We affirm.

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

evidence that the defendant inexcusably violated a condition of the suspension. Murry v. State, Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 239

2010 Ark. App. 782. The State bears the burden of proof, but it need only prove that the

defendant committed one violation in order to sustain the revocation. Id. When a trial court

bases its decision on alternate, independent grounds, and the appellant challenges only one of

those grounds, we will affirm without addressing the merits of either. Fuson v. State, 2011

Ark. 374, 383 S.W.3d 848; Camp v. State, 66 Ark. App. 134, 991 S.W.2d 611 (1999).

Here, the trial court expressly based its decision to revoke appellant’s suspension on

two independent grounds: that appellant committed forgery and that she failed to pay costs

and fees as previously ordered. On appeal, appellant challenges only the finding that she

committed forgery. Because appellant failed to challenge the trial court’s alternative ground

for revocation, we must affirm. See Bovee v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 158; Murry, supra.

Affirmed.

HARRISON and GRUBER, JJ., agree.

C. Brian Williams, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.