Devario Rashawn Paskell v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. App. 480

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: December 8, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 480 Elizabeth Perry I attest to the accuracy and ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS integrity of this document DIVISION I 2023.08.01 13:44:17 -05'00' No. CR-21-320 2023.003.20244 Opinion Delivered December 8, 2021 DEVARIO RASHAWN PASKELL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 02CR-17-170] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE ROBERT B. GIBSON III, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Chief Judge

In February 2018, Devario Paskell pleaded guilty to residential burglary and third-

degree battery. The Ashley County Circuit Court sentenced him as a habitual offender to

three years in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) followed by two years’

suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for the residential-burglary conviction. 1 Paskell’s

written SIS conditions included not committing any new criminal offenses. In December

2020, the State petitioned to revoke Paskell’s SIS. It alleged that Paskell had violated the

terms of his suspended sentence by committing new criminal offenses, specifically “entering

into vehicles for the purposes of committing a theft at three separate locations” in Ashley

County. Following a hearing, the circuit court revoked Paskell’s suspended sentence and

sentenced him to fifteen years in the ADC. Paskell appeals.

1 The court also imposed a one-year concurrent sentence for the third-degree-battery conviction. For his sole point on appeal, Paskell argues that the State failed to meet its burden to

prove that he violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence because it failed

to place the SIS terms into evidence. The State contends that Paskell’s argument was not

properly preserved because he never made this argument to the circuit court. We agree.

Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence may, generally speaking, be raised for

the first time in an appeal of a revocation. Myers v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 720, 451 S.W.3d

588. This court has held, however, that the State’s failure to introduce a copy of the terms

and conditions of a suspended sentence is a procedural objection that must be raised in the

circuit court. Butry-Weston v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 51, 616 S.W.3d 685. Here, a copy of

the terms of Paskell’s suspended sentence was included in the record, but the prosecuting

attorney did not move to introduce it as evidence during the revocation hearing, so the

court did not admit it. Because Paskell never objected to the State’s failure to introduce a

copy of the SIS terms during the hearing, his argument is not preserved for our review.

Affirmed.

VAUGHT and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Potts Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, for appellant.

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