Frank G. Griffith v. State of Arkansas

2023 Ark. App. 407

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: September 27, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 407 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-22-772

Opinion Delivered September 27, 2023 FRANK G. GRIFFITH APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE GREENE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 28CR-19-846]

HONORABLE RANDY F. STATE OF ARKANSAS PHILHOURS, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED; REMANDED TO CORRECT SENTENCING ORDER

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

Frank G. Griffith appeals the revocation of his probation in a companion case to

Griffith v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 406, also handed down today. In a joint hearing, the Greene

County Circuit Court heard revocation petitions in two cases—the case on appeal here and

the case decided in the companion appeal. We affirm the revocation and remand to correct

the sentencing order.

In May 2021, Griffith was placed on five years’ probation after pleading guilty to

possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia in case No. 28CR-

19-846. The State filed a petition to revoke probation in October 2021, alleging that Griffith

had violated the conditions of his probation by failing to report, failing to provide medical

documentation, failing to obtain a drug-and-alcohol assessment, and failing to pay his financial obligations. In March 2022, the State filed a supplemental petition to revoke

alleging that Griffith had been arrested for new offenses and had failed to contact his

probation officer. At the August 2022 revocation hearing, Griffith’s probation officer

testified regarding his failure to abide by the probation conditions, and the circuit court

found by a preponderance of the evidence that Griffith had violated the conditions of

probation. Griffith was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for the offense of possession

of a controlled substance and six years’ suspended imposition of sentence for the offense of

possession of drug paraphernalia.

On appeal, Griffith argues that the revocation should be reversed because “it is not

clear from the record that the trial court knew the terms and conditions of Appellant’s

probation,” no written probation conditions were introduced at the hearing, and no witness

testified about the specific probation conditions. As explained in Griffith, supra, Griffith’s

argument is not preserved for appeal, and in any event, the conditions of probation were, in

fact, admitted into evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation. As in Griffith, supra,

count 1 on the sentencing order incorrectly reflects that this was not a revocation, and we

remand to the circuit court to correct the sentencing order.

Affirmed; remanded to correct sentencing order.

HARRISON, C.J., and BROWN, J., agree.

James Scurlock, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: A. Evangeline Bacon, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.