Cite as 2019 Ark. App. 407 Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Perry Date: 2022.07.26 10:29:21 DIVISION IV -05'00' No.CR-18-1007 Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.001.20169 Opinion Delivered September 25, 2019
KYSTON BASS APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 30CR-17-110] V. HONORABLE CHRIS E STATE OF ARKANSAS WILLIAMS, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Kyston Bass appeals the circuit court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief,
asserting that the circuit court erred in giving him two strikes for the same incident,
terminating his participation in drug court without due process, and denying his petition
for a reduction in sentence. We affirm.
In 2017, Kyston Bass pled guilty to one count of residential burglary and one count
of theft of property. Bass was sentenced to twenty-six years’ imprisonment, but his sentence
was deferred, and he was placed in the drug-court program. In June 2018, Bass was
suspended from drug court after receiving three strikes and sentenced to twenty-six years’
imprisonment. Bass subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief, arguing
that he was not given a hearing on his second and third strikes and was denied due process
“by being surprised in court on these strikes and by not being allowed to fully prepare for a
hearing.” In the alternative, Bass moved to reduce his sentence, asserting that the sentence 1 was unreasonably excessive considering he had no prior criminal history and had accepted
responsibility for his actions in court.
The circuit court convened a hearing on 14 August 2018. Danny Marsh, a parole
and probation officer, testified that he also oversees the drug-court program in the Seventh
Judicial District. Marsh explained that Bass had entered the drug-court program in
November 2017 and that he (Marsh) provided Bass with a set of conditions for his
supervision and a drug-court handbook. Marsh noted that Bass had initialed beside each
condition of his supervision as it was explained to him.
According to Marsh, Bass was issued a first strike in March 2018 after he tested
positive for alcohol. On 25 May 2018, Bass arrived approximately one hour late for his
drug testing, for which he received a second strike. Bass later told Marsh that he had been
at a job interview, which Marsh was unable to confirm. Bass was sentenced to fourteen
days in jail for the second strike. The drug test he had taken was positive for THC, and
after completing his fourteen-day sentence, Bass returned to court and was given a third
strike for the positive drug test. On cross-examination, Marsh said that drug-court
participants are not normally given any written notice before receiving a strike. Marsh also
confirmed that Bass did not have any prior felonies.
Linda White, a drug-court administrator, testified that she had administered Bass’s
drug test in May 2018 in which he tested positive for THC. She said that he had arrived
late but she allowed him to take the drug test, and by the time the in-house positive result
had been obtained, Bass had already been taken to serve his fourteen-day sentence for being
late. On cross-examination, White said that when Bass arrived for the test, she told him he
2 had missed the cutoff time, and Bass knew he would get a strike for being late. She agreed
that participants did not get written notice of strikes but said, “[T]hey do have the rules of
Drug Court and know what is a strike and what is not.”
Bass testified that he was twenty years old when he entered the drug-court program
and that he had no prior convictions. He admitted that he deserved his first strike for
drinking alcohol but said that he did not deserve his second strike because “she didn’t tell
me anything. When I came in she told me that I was late and then I asked her could I still
take the drug test. And then she was like, yeah. So she didn’t let me know anything else
after that.” He also insisted that he had not taken any THC, but he had been in a car where
THC had been smoked. He testified that he was “never notified” about strikes two and
three and agreed that he did not have time to prepare for a hearing. (At this point, the court
interjected that Bass was getting a hearing that day based on his petition and that there had
been no prior petition filed.) Bass also agreed that his sentence was excessive and that because
of his young age, he could have been given probation. On cross-examination, he agreed
that he thought that because he had been allowed to take his drug test, it did not matter that
he had been late.
The circuit court first found that Bass’s due-process argument had been ruled on in
Tornavacca v. State, 2012 Ark. 224, 408 S.W.3d 727. In that case, our supreme court
explained:
At the Rule 37 hearing, the issue of whether appellant committed his second and third strikes was fully aired, and based on the evidence presented, the circuit court found that appellant had consumed alcohol, that he did not phone the call-in line, and that he ingested medication that had not been approved. Thus, appellant has been accorded the benefit of an adversarial hearing regarding the strikes. 3 Id. at 14, 408 S.W.3d at 737. The circuit court found that Bass’s due-process rights had not
been denied, that he could have petitioned for a hearing on any of his three strikes but did
not do so, and that he had been heard on all three strikes at the Rule 37 hearing. The
circuit court also found that Bass had clearly committed three separate infractions warranting
strikes: drinking alcohol, showing up late, and testing positive for THC. Finally, the court
found that Bass’s twenty-six-year sentence was not excessive because it was within the
sentencing range for the charges to which he pled guilty. The circuit court entered an order
denying Bass’s petition for postconviction relief and his petition for reduction in sentence
on 17 August 2018. Bass has timely appealed.
We will reverse the circuit court’s decision granting or denying postconviction relief
only when that decision is clearly erroneous. See Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18, 238 S.W.3d
24 (2006). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,
the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id.
Bass first asserts that the circuit court erred in finding that he had committed two
strikes “for the same offense.” He develops no real argument on this point; instead, he states
that if he had not shown up on May 25 at all, he would have received only one strike, not
two. 1 The circuit court was clear that Bass received his second strike for being late and his
third strike for the positive drug test—those are two separate offenses.
1 Bass quotes the circuit court as stating, “As far as the strikes go, it does appear that Mr. Bass was struck twice for the same event, once for testing late and once for the positive 4 For his second point, Bass argues that the circuit court erred in finding that he was
not deprived of his due-process rights. Bass attempts to distinguish Tornavacca by arguing
that in this case, there was no staff meeting prior to the court hearing. But that is a
distinction without a difference. Tornavacca is on all fours with the present case, and just as
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2019 Ark. App. 407 Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Perry Date: 2022.07.26 10:29:21 DIVISION IV -05'00' No.CR-18-1007 Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.001.20169 Opinion Delivered September 25, 2019
KYSTON BASS APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 30CR-17-110] V. HONORABLE CHRIS E STATE OF ARKANSAS WILLIAMS, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Kyston Bass appeals the circuit court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief,
asserting that the circuit court erred in giving him two strikes for the same incident,
terminating his participation in drug court without due process, and denying his petition
for a reduction in sentence. We affirm.
In 2017, Kyston Bass pled guilty to one count of residential burglary and one count
of theft of property. Bass was sentenced to twenty-six years’ imprisonment, but his sentence
was deferred, and he was placed in the drug-court program. In June 2018, Bass was
suspended from drug court after receiving three strikes and sentenced to twenty-six years’
imprisonment. Bass subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief, arguing
that he was not given a hearing on his second and third strikes and was denied due process
“by being surprised in court on these strikes and by not being allowed to fully prepare for a
hearing.” In the alternative, Bass moved to reduce his sentence, asserting that the sentence 1 was unreasonably excessive considering he had no prior criminal history and had accepted
responsibility for his actions in court.
The circuit court convened a hearing on 14 August 2018. Danny Marsh, a parole
and probation officer, testified that he also oversees the drug-court program in the Seventh
Judicial District. Marsh explained that Bass had entered the drug-court program in
November 2017 and that he (Marsh) provided Bass with a set of conditions for his
supervision and a drug-court handbook. Marsh noted that Bass had initialed beside each
condition of his supervision as it was explained to him.
According to Marsh, Bass was issued a first strike in March 2018 after he tested
positive for alcohol. On 25 May 2018, Bass arrived approximately one hour late for his
drug testing, for which he received a second strike. Bass later told Marsh that he had been
at a job interview, which Marsh was unable to confirm. Bass was sentenced to fourteen
days in jail for the second strike. The drug test he had taken was positive for THC, and
after completing his fourteen-day sentence, Bass returned to court and was given a third
strike for the positive drug test. On cross-examination, Marsh said that drug-court
participants are not normally given any written notice before receiving a strike. Marsh also
confirmed that Bass did not have any prior felonies.
Linda White, a drug-court administrator, testified that she had administered Bass’s
drug test in May 2018 in which he tested positive for THC. She said that he had arrived
late but she allowed him to take the drug test, and by the time the in-house positive result
had been obtained, Bass had already been taken to serve his fourteen-day sentence for being
late. On cross-examination, White said that when Bass arrived for the test, she told him he
2 had missed the cutoff time, and Bass knew he would get a strike for being late. She agreed
that participants did not get written notice of strikes but said, “[T]hey do have the rules of
Drug Court and know what is a strike and what is not.”
Bass testified that he was twenty years old when he entered the drug-court program
and that he had no prior convictions. He admitted that he deserved his first strike for
drinking alcohol but said that he did not deserve his second strike because “she didn’t tell
me anything. When I came in she told me that I was late and then I asked her could I still
take the drug test. And then she was like, yeah. So she didn’t let me know anything else
after that.” He also insisted that he had not taken any THC, but he had been in a car where
THC had been smoked. He testified that he was “never notified” about strikes two and
three and agreed that he did not have time to prepare for a hearing. (At this point, the court
interjected that Bass was getting a hearing that day based on his petition and that there had
been no prior petition filed.) Bass also agreed that his sentence was excessive and that because
of his young age, he could have been given probation. On cross-examination, he agreed
that he thought that because he had been allowed to take his drug test, it did not matter that
he had been late.
The circuit court first found that Bass’s due-process argument had been ruled on in
Tornavacca v. State, 2012 Ark. 224, 408 S.W.3d 727. In that case, our supreme court
explained:
At the Rule 37 hearing, the issue of whether appellant committed his second and third strikes was fully aired, and based on the evidence presented, the circuit court found that appellant had consumed alcohol, that he did not phone the call-in line, and that he ingested medication that had not been approved. Thus, appellant has been accorded the benefit of an adversarial hearing regarding the strikes. 3 Id. at 14, 408 S.W.3d at 737. The circuit court found that Bass’s due-process rights had not
been denied, that he could have petitioned for a hearing on any of his three strikes but did
not do so, and that he had been heard on all three strikes at the Rule 37 hearing. The
circuit court also found that Bass had clearly committed three separate infractions warranting
strikes: drinking alcohol, showing up late, and testing positive for THC. Finally, the court
found that Bass’s twenty-six-year sentence was not excessive because it was within the
sentencing range for the charges to which he pled guilty. The circuit court entered an order
denying Bass’s petition for postconviction relief and his petition for reduction in sentence
on 17 August 2018. Bass has timely appealed.
We will reverse the circuit court’s decision granting or denying postconviction relief
only when that decision is clearly erroneous. See Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18, 238 S.W.3d
24 (2006). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,
the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id.
Bass first asserts that the circuit court erred in finding that he had committed two
strikes “for the same offense.” He develops no real argument on this point; instead, he states
that if he had not shown up on May 25 at all, he would have received only one strike, not
two. 1 The circuit court was clear that Bass received his second strike for being late and his
third strike for the positive drug test—those are two separate offenses.
1 Bass quotes the circuit court as stating, “As far as the strikes go, it does appear that Mr. Bass was struck twice for the same event, once for testing late and once for the positive 4 For his second point, Bass argues that the circuit court erred in finding that he was
not deprived of his due-process rights. Bass attempts to distinguish Tornavacca by arguing
that in this case, there was no staff meeting prior to the court hearing. But that is a
distinction without a difference. Tornavacca is on all fours with the present case, and just as
in Tornavacca, the issue of whether Bass committed his second and third strikes was fully
aired at the Rule 37 hearing. Thus, Bass was accorded the benefit of an adversarial hearing
regarding the strikes.
For his third point, Bass contends that the circuit court erred in denying his petition
for reduction in sentence, but his only “argument” is the conclusory statement that the
sentence is excessive. Bass pled guilty to residential burglary, a Class B felony, for which
the sentencing range is five to twenty years, and theft of property worth more than $1000
but less than $5000, a Class D felony, for which the sentencing shall not exceed six years.
See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401 (Repl. 2013). Thus, his sentence, while at the maximum,
is still within the established statutory range and is therefore not excessive. See Scott v. State,
27 Ark. App. 1, 4, 764 S.W.2d 625, 627 (1989) (“If a sentence is within the limits set by
the legislature, it is legal.”).
Affirmed.
GRUBER, C.J., and MURPHY, J., agree.
Phyllis J. Lemons, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
result. I suppose if he had just not shown up at all he might have only been struck once for not being there.” This was a statement made by the prosecutor, not the circuit court. 5