Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 248 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-24-615
Opinion Delivered April 23, 2025
JEFFREY CRABTREE APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT V. [NO. 16JCR-23-91]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED
CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge
This case comes before the court on appeal from the Craighead County Circuit
Court’s decision to revoke Jeffrey Crabtree’s suspended imposition of sentence. The
appellant, Jeffrey Crabtree, challenges the circuit court’s decision on two grounds: (1) the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation of his SIS, and (2) the denial of his
motion for a continuance to hire private counsel. We affirm.
On June 12, 2023, Crabtree pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with purpose
to deliver and was sentenced to five years’ suspended imposition of sentence (SIS). The
conditions of Crabtree’s SIS included, inter alia, not committing any crime punishable by
imprisonment and not possessing any controlled substance for illegal purpose.
The State filed a petition to revoke Crabtree’s SIS on March 19, 2024, following his
February arrest for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a pipe, and tampering with evidence. The State filed a supplemental petition to revoke his SIS on May 14, 2024,
following Crabtree’s April arrest for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a pipe,
and tampering with evidence.
The revocation hearing was originally set for June 10, 2024, but at Crabtree’s request
on that date, was continued to June 11, 2024. At the beginning of the hearing on June 11,
Crabtree requested another continuance to hire new counsel, stating he had not had an
opportunity to meet with his attorney. The circuit court noted that Crabtree had not stayed
and attempted to speak with his attorney following the hearing the day before, despite having
the opportunity to do so. Crabtree admittedly had spoken briefly with his attorney on the
telephone. In response to questioning by the court, Crabtree’s attorney informed the court
that he was ready to move forward, and the court denied Crabtree’s request for a
continuance.
The State called two witnesses at the hearing. The first witness, Officer Nash Thomas
of the Arkansas State Police, testified that he stopped Crabtree in February 2024 after he
received a report that Crabtree was driving erratically and failing to stay in his lane. During
the stop, the officer who was with Officer Thomas saw Crabtree “do something” on the other
side of his truck as he was exiting the vehicle. Officer Thomas heard something hit the
ground. When he went around the truck, he found a white pouch containing a glass pipe
and methamphetamine. Officer Thomas testified that his dash-camera footage confirmed
the pouch came from Crabtree’s truck. Officer Thomas arrested Crabtree for possession of
methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and tampering with evidence.
2 Next, the State called Officer Lloyd Norman of the Craighead County Sherriff’s
Office. On April 7, 2024, Officer Norman performed a welfare check on Crabtree after he
was seen slumped over the steering wheel in his truck while parked in a cemetery. Officer
Norman smelled marijuana and found marijuana roaches in a cigarette pack, which Crabtree
had reported to him, and a small bottle of marijuana inside the truck. Norman destroyed
the marijuana and released Crabtree. However, while returning to his truck, Norman saw a
small gray case lying on the ground that had not been there before his encounter with
Crabtree. Officer Norman found a glass pipe with a burnt end and a baggie containing
methamphetamine inside the case. The case was dry, although the surrounding area was
covered in dew. Officer Norman went to Crabtree’s house and arrested him. During the
arrest, Crabtree informed Officer Norman that he had thrown the case from his truck
because he did not want to go to jail.
At the close of the State’s case, Crabtree moved to dismiss, which was denied by the
court. He then declined to testify or put on further evidence and renewed his motion to
dismiss. The court denied his motion and revoked Crabtree’s SIS, sentencing him to ten
years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Division of Correction. Crabtree timely appealed.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Crabtree argues that the revocation of his SIS is not supported by sufficient evidence
because neither officer saw him toss the contraband out of his truck window and the State
did not produce dash-camera-video evidence supporting the officers’ testimony. Crabtree’s
arguments are without merit.
3 In order to revoke a defendant’s suspended sentence, the circuit court must find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably failed to comply with a
condition of his or her suspension. McGahey v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 30, 683 S.W.3d 211.
This court will not reverse the circuit court’s revocation unless it is clearly against the
preponderance of the evidence. Id. We defer to the circuit court’s superior position on
questions of credibility and weight to be given the testimony. Id. Due to the difference in
the burdens of proof, evidence that is insufficient to support a criminal conviction may
support a probation or suspended-sentence revocation. Id. Circumstantial evidence may be
sufficient to support a probation revocation. Passmore v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 425, 698
S.W.3d 400.
When the State alleges possession of contraband as a basis for revocation, it is not
required to prove actual possession. Rather, constructive possession is sufficient. Knauls v.
State, 2020 Ark. App. 48, at 4, 593 S.W.3d 58, 61. Constructive possession is the control of
or the right to control the contraband. Hare v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 223, 687 S.W.3d 158.
It can be inferred from circumstances, such as the contraband being in plain view and its
proximity to the accused as well as the accused’s suspicious behavior. Farris v. State, 2024
Ark. App. 188, 686 S.W.3d 602.
In the present case, Officer Thomas testified that while he was conducting the traffic
stop of Crabtree, the officer who was with him saw Crabtree do something on the other side
of the car. Officer Thomas then heard something hit the ground. When he walked around
the car, he found the pouch containing the methamphetamine and the broken pipe on the
4 ground. He testified that he reviewed the footage from his dash camera and confirmed that
the pouch came from Crabtree’s truck.
Officer Norman testified that after he let Crabtree leave, and as he was walking back
to his unit, he saw a gray box on the ground that had not been there before. The ground
was covered in dew, but the box was dry. Inside the box was methamphetamine and a pipe.
While Officer Norman was arresting Crabtree, Crabtree stated that he threw the box out of
his truck window because he did not want to go to jail.
Crabtree’s arguments are somewhat disingenuous considering that one officer
testified that his dash-camera footage confirmed that Crabtree threw the methamphetamine
and pipe out of his truck window, and the other officer testified that Crabtree told him he
threw the contraband out of his window. This testimony was in addition to the other
evidence supporting the determination that the drugs and paraphernalia belonged to
Crabtree.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 248 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-24-615
Opinion Delivered April 23, 2025
JEFFREY CRABTREE APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT V. [NO. 16JCR-23-91]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED
CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge
This case comes before the court on appeal from the Craighead County Circuit
Court’s decision to revoke Jeffrey Crabtree’s suspended imposition of sentence. The
appellant, Jeffrey Crabtree, challenges the circuit court’s decision on two grounds: (1) the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation of his SIS, and (2) the denial of his
motion for a continuance to hire private counsel. We affirm.
On June 12, 2023, Crabtree pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with purpose
to deliver and was sentenced to five years’ suspended imposition of sentence (SIS). The
conditions of Crabtree’s SIS included, inter alia, not committing any crime punishable by
imprisonment and not possessing any controlled substance for illegal purpose.
The State filed a petition to revoke Crabtree’s SIS on March 19, 2024, following his
February arrest for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a pipe, and tampering with evidence. The State filed a supplemental petition to revoke his SIS on May 14, 2024,
following Crabtree’s April arrest for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a pipe,
and tampering with evidence.
The revocation hearing was originally set for June 10, 2024, but at Crabtree’s request
on that date, was continued to June 11, 2024. At the beginning of the hearing on June 11,
Crabtree requested another continuance to hire new counsel, stating he had not had an
opportunity to meet with his attorney. The circuit court noted that Crabtree had not stayed
and attempted to speak with his attorney following the hearing the day before, despite having
the opportunity to do so. Crabtree admittedly had spoken briefly with his attorney on the
telephone. In response to questioning by the court, Crabtree’s attorney informed the court
that he was ready to move forward, and the court denied Crabtree’s request for a
continuance.
The State called two witnesses at the hearing. The first witness, Officer Nash Thomas
of the Arkansas State Police, testified that he stopped Crabtree in February 2024 after he
received a report that Crabtree was driving erratically and failing to stay in his lane. During
the stop, the officer who was with Officer Thomas saw Crabtree “do something” on the other
side of his truck as he was exiting the vehicle. Officer Thomas heard something hit the
ground. When he went around the truck, he found a white pouch containing a glass pipe
and methamphetamine. Officer Thomas testified that his dash-camera footage confirmed
the pouch came from Crabtree’s truck. Officer Thomas arrested Crabtree for possession of
methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and tampering with evidence.
2 Next, the State called Officer Lloyd Norman of the Craighead County Sherriff’s
Office. On April 7, 2024, Officer Norman performed a welfare check on Crabtree after he
was seen slumped over the steering wheel in his truck while parked in a cemetery. Officer
Norman smelled marijuana and found marijuana roaches in a cigarette pack, which Crabtree
had reported to him, and a small bottle of marijuana inside the truck. Norman destroyed
the marijuana and released Crabtree. However, while returning to his truck, Norman saw a
small gray case lying on the ground that had not been there before his encounter with
Crabtree. Officer Norman found a glass pipe with a burnt end and a baggie containing
methamphetamine inside the case. The case was dry, although the surrounding area was
covered in dew. Officer Norman went to Crabtree’s house and arrested him. During the
arrest, Crabtree informed Officer Norman that he had thrown the case from his truck
because he did not want to go to jail.
At the close of the State’s case, Crabtree moved to dismiss, which was denied by the
court. He then declined to testify or put on further evidence and renewed his motion to
dismiss. The court denied his motion and revoked Crabtree’s SIS, sentencing him to ten
years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Division of Correction. Crabtree timely appealed.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Crabtree argues that the revocation of his SIS is not supported by sufficient evidence
because neither officer saw him toss the contraband out of his truck window and the State
did not produce dash-camera-video evidence supporting the officers’ testimony. Crabtree’s
arguments are without merit.
3 In order to revoke a defendant’s suspended sentence, the circuit court must find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably failed to comply with a
condition of his or her suspension. McGahey v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 30, 683 S.W.3d 211.
This court will not reverse the circuit court’s revocation unless it is clearly against the
preponderance of the evidence. Id. We defer to the circuit court’s superior position on
questions of credibility and weight to be given the testimony. Id. Due to the difference in
the burdens of proof, evidence that is insufficient to support a criminal conviction may
support a probation or suspended-sentence revocation. Id. Circumstantial evidence may be
sufficient to support a probation revocation. Passmore v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 425, 698
S.W.3d 400.
When the State alleges possession of contraband as a basis for revocation, it is not
required to prove actual possession. Rather, constructive possession is sufficient. Knauls v.
State, 2020 Ark. App. 48, at 4, 593 S.W.3d 58, 61. Constructive possession is the control of
or the right to control the contraband. Hare v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 223, 687 S.W.3d 158.
It can be inferred from circumstances, such as the contraband being in plain view and its
proximity to the accused as well as the accused’s suspicious behavior. Farris v. State, 2024
Ark. App. 188, 686 S.W.3d 602.
In the present case, Officer Thomas testified that while he was conducting the traffic
stop of Crabtree, the officer who was with him saw Crabtree do something on the other side
of the car. Officer Thomas then heard something hit the ground. When he walked around
the car, he found the pouch containing the methamphetamine and the broken pipe on the
4 ground. He testified that he reviewed the footage from his dash camera and confirmed that
the pouch came from Crabtree’s truck.
Officer Norman testified that after he let Crabtree leave, and as he was walking back
to his unit, he saw a gray box on the ground that had not been there before. The ground
was covered in dew, but the box was dry. Inside the box was methamphetamine and a pipe.
While Officer Norman was arresting Crabtree, Crabtree stated that he threw the box out of
his truck window because he did not want to go to jail.
Crabtree’s arguments are somewhat disingenuous considering that one officer
testified that his dash-camera footage confirmed that Crabtree threw the methamphetamine
and pipe out of his truck window, and the other officer testified that Crabtree told him he
threw the contraband out of his window. This testimony was in addition to the other
evidence supporting the determination that the drugs and paraphernalia belonged to
Crabtree. Crabtree asserts that the officers’ testimony would have been more credible had
they supported it with the videos capturing the events. It is apparent that the circuit court
found the officers’ testimony credible, and this court will not second-guess that
determination. Considering the burden of proof, the evidence presented, and the circuit
court’s superior position to judge credibility, we find the evidence sufficient to support the
revocation of Crabtree’s SIS.
II. Denial of Motion for Continuance
Crabtree asserts that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a continuance
to hire private counsel. We disagree.
5 A continuance should be granted only upon a showing of good cause. Ark. R. Crim.
P. 27.3. A circuit court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a continuance.
Abernathy v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 532, 699 S.W.3d 842. The circuit court’s denial of a
motion for continuance will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion. Id. To
establish an abuse of discretion, the appellant must demonstrate that the circuit court acted
improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration and that the denial resulted in
prejudice amounting to a denial of justice. Abernathy, supra; Price v. State, 2009 Ark. App.
664, 344 S.W.3d 678. “Moreover, once competent counsel is obtained, any request for a
change in counsel must be considered in the context of the public’s interest in the prompt
dispensation of justice.” King v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 531, at 4, 589 S.W.3d 420, 423.
Factors to be considered by the circuit court in deciding whether to grant a continuance in
order for the defendant to obtain new counsel include (1) whether there has been adequate
opportunity for the defendant to employ counsel, (2) whether the defendant has requested
and been granted other continuances, (3) the length of the requested delay, (4) legitimate
reasons for the continuance, (5) whether the motion was timely, (6) whether the defendant
contributed to the need for a continuance, (7) whether discharge of current counsel is solely
for obtaining a continuance, and (8) whether granting a continuance would be consistent
with the fair, efficient, and effective administration of justice. Id.
Crabtree requested a continuance on the morning of the revocation hearing, citing
his desire to hire new counsel and claiming insufficient opportunity to confer with his
current attorney. Crabtree also had requested a continuance the day before, June 10, and
6 had been granted a one-day continuance. Although Crabtree claimed he had not had an
opportunity to meet with his attorney, the scheduling order setting the revocation hearing
for June 10, 2024, had been entered on March 28, 2024, over two months before the
hearing. The order stated in bold upper-case letters, “IF DEFENDANT IS REPRESENTED
BY the PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, THEY ARE ORDERED TO CONTACT
AND/OR MEET WITH THEIR ATTORNEY BEFORE COURT,” and provided the
phone number to the public defender’s office. The scheduling order was signed by Crabtree
and his attorney. And, as pointed out by the court, Crabtree had not taken advantage of his
opportunity to meet with his attorney the day before when they were in the courtroom.
Crabtree’s motion for a continuance was made late in the game. “Last-minute
continuances tread upon the rights of parties and the demands of a court’s calendar.”
Abernathy, 2024 Ark. App. 532, at 5, 699 S.W.3d at 846. Lack of diligence alone can support
a denial of a motion for continuance. McKee v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 538, 700 S.W.3d 509.
Crabtree had time to employ other counsel and did not take advantage of time and
opportunity to meet with his assigned counsel. In addition to showing a lack of diligence,
he failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance or that he was prejudiced by its denial.
The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, and we affirm.
Affirmed.
HARRISON and BARRETT, JJ., agree.
Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: A. Evangeline Bacon, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.