Josh Hurt v. State of Arkansas

2026 Ark. App. 20

Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 20 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-25-100

JOSH HURT Opinion Delivered January 14, 2026

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE GREENE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 28CR-16-36]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE MELISSA BRISTOW APPELLEE RICHARDSON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge

Josh Hurt appeals the Greene County Circuit Court’s sentencing order revoking his

suspended imposition of sentence (“SIS”) and sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment. 1

Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b) (2024) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), Hurt’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief stating that

there are no meritorious grounds to support an appeal. The clerk of this court mailed a

certified copy of counsel’s motion and brief to Hurt, informing him of his right to file pro

1 This is a companion case to Hurt v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 21, and Hurt v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 22, no-merit appeals from the revocation of Hurt’s suspended sentences in case numbers CR-25-101 and CR-25-102, also handed down today. The circuit court held one revocation hearing on the State’s petitions in the three cases. se points for reversal; he has filed pro se points. The State has filed a brief in response to

Hurt’s pro se points. We affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

I. Statement of the Case

In March 2016, Hurt pled guilty to Class C felony possession of methamphetamine

and Class D felony tampering with physical evidence and was sentenced to sixty months’

probation on each count. His probation was revoked in an amended sentencing order

entered August 16, 2021, and he was again sentenced on the underlying felonies, this time

to three years’ imprisonment followed by three years’ SIS on each count. The terms of his

SIS included the requirements that Hurt not “use, sell, distribute or possess any controlled

substance.” He was released from prison and began serving his suspended sentences on May

19, 2022.

On August 24, 2022, the State petitioned to revoke Hurt’s SIS, alleging that in July

2022, he had violated the terms and conditions of his SIS by possessing controlled substances

with the purpose to deliver, possessing drug paraphernalia, and admitting to the use of

methamphetamine. On October 16, 2023, the State filed a supplemental petition to revoke,

adding the allegations that in June 2023, Hurt had committed the misdemeanor offense of

disorderly conduct, and in September 2023, he had committed the offenses of possession of

controlled substances and drug paraphernalia and had associated with a convicted felon.

The circuit court held a revocation hearing on July 15, 2024, and, at the conclusion

of the hearing, found that Hurt had violated the terms and conditions of his SIS by using

and possessing methamphetamine. The court revoked his SIS for the Class C possession-of-

2 methamphetamine conviction. In a sentencing order entered the same day, the court

sentenced Hurt to five years’ imprisonment.

II. Adverse Ruling

Rule 4-3(b)(1) provides that a no-merit brief shall contain an argument section that

consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court on all

objections, motions, and requests made by either party with an explanation as to why each

adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. The brief’s statement of the case and

the facts shall contain, in addition to the other material parts of the record, all rulings adverse

to the defendant made by the circuit court and the page number where each adverse ruling

is located in the appellate record. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(b)(1).

The only adverse ruling in this case is the circuit court’s revocation of Hurt’s SIS. To

revoke an SIS, the burden is on the State to prove the violation of a condition of the SIS by

a preponderance of the evidence. Thomas v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 436, at 3, 698 S.W.3d 665,

667. Because the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond

a reasonable doubt, evidence that is insufficient to support a criminal conviction may be

sufficient to support a revocation. Id., 698 S.W.3d at 667. The State bears the burden of

proof but need only prove one violation. Peals v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 1, at 4, 453 S.W.3d

151, 154.

At the revocation hearing, Agent Ethan McGinnis, Hurt’s parole supervisor, testified

that Hurt had confessed to using methamphetamine on ten separate occasions while he was

serving his suspended sentence. Hurt’s signed confessions were introduced into evidence

3 without objection. Agent McGinnis also testified about two home visits he had conducted—

one in 2022 and one in September 2023—during which Hurt’s home was searched and

methamphetamine was discovered.

Hurt admitted at the revocation hearing that he had signed the ten confessions and

that they were true. He also admitted having told Agent McGinnis that he would fail drug

tests for methamphetamine. However, Hurt explained that the CIA had drugged him with

the methamphetamine through a “3D drug delivery system [that] uses the principles of

quantum entanglement.”

The court revoked Hurt’s SIS on the basis of Hurt’s use of methamphetamine. The

court specifically relied on Agent McGinnis’s testimony and Hurt’s admission at the hearing

that Hurt had used methamphetamine and had signed the ten confessions. We defer to the

circuit court’s superior position for assessing questions of credibility and the weight to be

given to testimony. Carter v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 9, at 6, 703 S.W.3d 564, 568. Considering

this deference and our review of the record, we agree with counsel that there would be no

merit to an appeal of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Hurt’s revocation.

III. Pro Se Points

We now turn to Hurt’s pro se points for reversal. He contends that the evidence is

insufficient to support the revocation because the underlying July 2022 drug charges were

nolle prossed, eight of his ten confessions to methamphetamine use were inadmissible, and

the disorderly-conduct offense was inadmissible. However, as stated, Hurt testified at the

hearing that he used methamphetamine while he was serving his suspended sentence, and

4 he admits that two of the ten confessions were admissible. This is sufficient to support his

revocation. Harris v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 452, at 5, 530 S.W.3d 872, 875 (holding that a

defendant’s confession to a violation is sufficient to support revocation). Next, Hurt argues

that the transcript was altered, his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, and

his right to due process was violated by the circuit court and the “CIA.” These arguments

are conclusory, and none of them were raised, developed, or ruled on by the circuit court.

Thus, they are not preserved, and none supports a meritorious ground for reversal. Haney v.

State, 2020 Ark. App. 341, at 8, 602 S.W.3d 154, 159.

From our review of the record and the brief presented, we hold that counsel has

complied with Rule 4-3(b) and that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the

revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

HIXSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.