Larry Shields v. State of Arkansas

2024 Ark. App. 520, 699 S.W.3d 835

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: October 30, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 520 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-23-827

LARRY SHIELDS Opinion Delivered October 30, 2024 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. EASTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16LCR-21-23] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE DAN RITCHEY, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

The Craighead County Circuit Court revoked the probation of appellant Larry

Shields and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment to be followed by a five-year period

of suspended imposition of sentence. Shields argues that there was insufficient evidence to

find that he willfully violated the terms and conditions of his probation. We affirm.

I. Background

In November 2021, Shields pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and

was placed on probation for five years. He received and signed standard terms and conditions

of probation, including that he must pay a fine and costs. In January 2023, the State filed a

petition to revoke alleging that Shields had violated several terms and conditions of his

probation by being arrested for misdemeanor offenses, using drugs, failing to participate in

drug rehabilitation, failing to report to his probation officer, failing to provide proof of employment, being delinquent on the payment of his probation fees, and failing to pay on

his fine. A hearing was held on the State’s petition.

Agent Kayla Sain with Arkansas Community Correction testified that she supervised

Shields while he was on probation. She said that she went over the terms and conditions of

Shields’s probation with him at intake. Sain testified that Shields failed to report to her eight

times between June 2022 and August 2023. She said that Shields admitted using drugs on

several dates and that he failed multiple drug screens. She referred him to Substance Abuse

Program Leadership (SAPL) due to his failed drug screens, but he was discharged from the

program after he had five unexcused absences from weekly meetings. She said that she told

Shields that he should seek drug rehabilitation but that he failed to do so. Sain testified that

she was notified that Shields had been arrested for misdemeanor theft of services and

criminal mischief. Sain also said that Shields, as of ten days before the hearing, was

delinquent on his probation fees and that he had made only one $100 payment on his fine

and costs in connection with his plea.

Christopher Kellem, eastern district deputy sheriff, testified that Shields had tested

positive for methamphetamine on the day of the probation-revocation hearing.

Shields testified that, although he has had a problem with methamphetamine for

years, he has always been able to maintain his job and is “a fine carpenter.” He said that he

would have provided proof of his employment had he been told that it was required. Shields

said that he is current on his probation fees as of the day of the hearing. Shields admitted

using drugs while on probation and acknowledged the multiple failed drug screens. He stated

2 that he had both paid for drugs and traded his carpentry services for drugs while having an

outstanding balance on his court-ordered fine. Shields claimed that he had missed SAPL

meetings because he lacked transportation but later conceded that he had transportation to

purchase drugs in another city. Regarding the arrests for theft of services and criminal

mischief, Shields said that he had pleaded guilty to those offenses.

The trial court found that Shields had violated six of the terms and conditions of his

probation in that he had failed to pay his fine and costs, failed multiple drug screens, failed

to participate in a substance-abuse program recommended by his probation officer, failed to

timely and regularly pay his probation fees, failed to report for probation meetings, and failed

to live a law-abiding life.

II. Discussion

Shields argues that the trial court committed reversible error in revoking his

probation because there were inconsistencies in the testimony; however, the trial court relied

solely on Sain’s testimony. Shields asserts that in this case, “the weight [of the evidence]

should be given to the Defendant.”

The burden on the State in a revocation proceeding is to prove by a preponderance

of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his

probation. Nash v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 108. The State need only prove one violation to

sustain the revocation. Id. The standard has been explained as follows:

A preponderance of the evidence is the greater evidence when compared to that opposed to it. On appeal, we reverse the trial court only if we determine that the evidence is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, and we need not review

3 the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to make that determination. When considering the preponderance of the evidence, it does not matter to what degree the evidence in favor of the trial court’s judgment outweighs that opposed to it, only that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding, even if that evidence only minutely outweighs that opposed to it.

Ramsey v. State, 60 Ark. App. 206, 211, 959 S.W.2d 765, 768 (1998) (Crabtree, J., concurring)

(citations omitted). Preponderance of the evidence means evidence of greater convincing

force and implies an overbalancing in weight. Ray Baxter, P.A. v. Baxter, 2012 Ark. App. 251,

413 S.W.3d 561. The determination turns on questions of credibility and the weight to be

given testimony, and we defer to the trial court’s superior position in that regard. Chambers

v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 69, 540 S.W.3d 316.

Shields argues that he did not know that he had to provide proof of employment,

that he had told Sain he did not have transportation to the SAPL meetings, and that he had

discussed his address with Sain when he had to move into a camper. The trial court was not

required to believe Shields’s testimony and could give greater weight to Sain’s testimony

about Shields’s compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation. Moreover, the

trial court did not revoke Shields’s probation for failing to provide proof of employment or

his address. When a trial court bases its decision on alternate, independent grounds, and the

appellant challenges only one of those grounds, we will affirm without addressing the merits

of either. Bedford v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 239. Shields also argues that he had an excuse for

failing to attend the substance-abuse program. Given that Shields does not challenge the

other grounds for revocation, and considering that he admitted multiple violations of

probation on the stand, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision to revoke Shields’s

4 probation was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Pettigrew v. State,

2019 Ark. App. 420.

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.

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