John Naylor v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. App. 448

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 448 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-24-668

Opinion Delivered October 1, 2025 JOHN NAYLOR APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. EASTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16LCR-23-26] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge

John Naylor appeals the order of the Craighead County Circuit Court revoking his

probation and suspending imposition of any sentence for a period of ten years. We affirm.

In November 2023, Naylor pleaded guilty to three counts of failing to register as a sex

offender, each charged in a separate case, and was placed on three years of probation for

each count. In April 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke Naylor’s probation in all three

cases based on the commission of new offenses. A combined revocation hearing in all three

cases was held in June 2024. Naylor has filed separate appeals in each case, which are

addressed in separate opinions handed down today.

Probation officers Duane Busby and Brian Hook testified that they went to Naylor’s

place of work in February 2024 to serve him with notice of his appointment for a sex-offender community-notification assessment. They found Naylor sitting in his car, and after serving

him with the paperwork, they searched his car to ensure he was in compliance with

probation. Inside a backpack in Naylor’s car, Agent Hook found a bulbous pipe with a long

glass tube that had white residue on the inside and burn marks on the outside. He said this

was consistent with a pipe used to inhale methamphetamine. Agent Hook also found a

syringe containing a brownish liquid that was consistent with injecting narcotics

intravenously. Officer Jeremy Parnell of the Jonesboro Police Department testified that he

performed a field test on the evidence the following day, and it tested positive for

methamphetamine. The circuit court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Naylor

had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by being in possession of

methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.

A circuit court may revoke a defendant’s probation at any time prior to the expiration

of the period of probation if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant

has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his probation. Yarberry v. State, 2021

Ark. App. 265. The State has the burden of proving a condition of probation has been

violated, and proof of only one violation must be shown to sustain a revocation. Id. The

circuit court’s findings are affirmed on appellate review unless they are clearly against the

preponderance of the evidence. Id. The appellate courts defer to the circuit court’s superior

position to determine witness credibility and the weight to be accorded any testimony. Id.

On appeal, Naylor argues that there was no credible evidence by which the circuit

court could find without resorting to speculation that he violated his probation. He first

2 argues that the court was left to speculate as to whether the witnesses had the required

training and experience to identify the substance he possessed as methamphetamine. We

disagree. As Naylor recognizes, lay testimony may provide substantial evidence of the identity

of a controlled substance, even in the absence of expert chemical analysis. Abernathy v. State,

2024 Ark. App. 532, 699 S.W.3d 842 (holding that narcotics investigator’s training and

experience of seven years was sufficient to support his identification of controlled substance

in revocation hearing). Here, Agent Hook testified that he had worked for the Division of

Community Correction for sixteen years and that his identification of the contraband was

based on “previous contacts and training.” While Naylor complains that there was no

specific ruling as to the witnesses’ credibility, the court clearly found the witnesses credible

when it found that Naylor had possessed methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia “as the

witnesses testified to.”

Furthermore, Officer Parnell testified that a field test was positive for

methamphetamine. Naylor argues that this testimony cannot support revocation because

the officer did not specify whether he tested the contents of the pipe or the syringe. This

ignores the officer’s testimony that he “squirted” the methamphetamine into the field-test

pouch. Regardless of which item was tested, however, Naylor does not dispute that it was in

his possession and that it tested positive for methamphetamine. We hold that the circuit

court’s finding that Naylor violated his probation is not clearly against the preponderance of

the evidence.

Affirmed.

3 VIRDEN and WOOD, JJ., agree.

Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.

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