Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 282 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-24-618
MICHAEL BULL Opinion Delivered May 7, 2025 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16JCR-23-147] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
Michael Bull appeals the Craighead County Circuit Court’s decision revoking his
suspended imposition of sentence (SIS), arguing that there is insufficient evidence to support
the revocation. We affirm.
I. Relevant Facts
On July 10, 2023, Michael was sentenced to sixty months’ SIS after pleading guilty to
possessing between two and ten grams of methamphetamine. He was ordered to pay a $100
fine. The conditions listed in the SIS order included living a law-abiding life—specifically,
that he not commit any offense punishable by imprisonment and refrain from drug use and
possession.
On December 7, 2023, the State filed a petition for revocation asserting that Michael
violated the terms of his SIS by incurring five new charges: possession of a controlled substance—Schedule I/II, methamphetamine less than two grams; possession of drug
paraphernalia; first-degree terroristic threatening; third-degree domestic battery; and second-
degree false imprisonment.
At the revocation hearing, patrol officer Trevor Doepfer of the Jonesboro Police
Department testified that on November 18, 2023, he responded to a call from Melody Bull’s
coworkers at McDonald’s asking police to check on her. Officer Doepfer went to
McDonald’s and spoke with Melody, Michael Bull’s wife of fifteen years. Officer Doepfer
recalled that Melody looked as though she had been crying. Her eyes were red, and she had
a black eye and a cut on her bottom lip. He stated that she looked like she had been “hit.”
Melody told Officer Doepfer that she had been outside talking on the phone, when Michael
ordered her to go inside the house and then physically forced her back inside. An argument
ensued, and Michael punched her face, causing her nose to bleed. Melody told Officer
Doepfer that Michael threatened to drill screws into her legs. She calmed Michael down, and
eventually he fell asleep. While he slept, Melody wrote a note to Michael stating that she
wanted a divorce and left the house on foot. At that point, Melody called her former boss at
McDonald’s to come get her, and her former boss drove her to McDonald’s. After taking
Melody’s statement, Officer Doepfer went to the Bull residence to speak with Michael. By
the time he arrived, another officer had already handcuffed Michael, who was sitting on his
bed. On the nightstand next to the bed Officer Doepfer saw a bong with burn marks and a
white residue that was consistent with the appearance of burnt methamphetamine. Also on
the nightstand, Doepfer saw several unused hypodermic needles and two hypodermic
2 needles containing a dark brown liquid. He did not field test the substance, but in his
experience as a police officer, it appeared to be methamphetamine, and the needles were
loaded in a way that is common with methamphetamine use. He testified that he was “90%
certain” that the substance was methamphetamine, and the paraphernalia was used to ingest
methamphetamine. Officer Doepfer and the other officers performed a full parole search
and found a bag of needles in the television stand. No insulin or other injectable medication
was found in the home.
Melody testified that she did not remember what happened on November 18, 2023;
however, she did recall that she may have started an argument with Michael, then she left
the residence on foot and called her former boss at McDonald’s to pick her up. Melody was
covered in blood when her former boss picked her up, and she asked Melody—who had been
diagnosed with epilepsy two years earlier—if she had experienced a seizure. Melody testified
that the medication she was taking for her epilepsy affected her mood and memory. She did
not recall having a black eye and a cut lip that day, but she recounted other injuries she had
sustained related to her epilepsy. The State asked Melody about her statements to police that
Michael had struck her in the face, punched her in the eye, and threatened to drill screws
into her leg after accusing her of having a sexual relationship with his brother. Though
Melody remembered an officer coming to meet her at McDonald’s about an hour after she
arrived, she maintained that none of the statements she made to Officer Doepfer could be
true because Michael would not do that, and she must have made a mistake. Melody denied
that when she recanted her statement a few weeks before trial, she told the prosecutor that
3 she did not want her husband to go back to prison because of this. Melody agreed that her
trial testimony was the first time she stated that the events did not occur. Melody did not
remember any drugs or drug paraphernalia in their home and denied that any of it belonged
to her. Melody then stated that if there was methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in
the house, it belonged to both her and Michael.
At the close of the State’s evidence, Michael moved to dismiss the petition, and the
motion was denied. He renewed his motion at the close of all evidence.
The court delivered its ruling from the bench, finding by a preponderance of the
evidence that Michael inexcusably violated the terms of his probation by committing the
crimes of terroristic threatening, third-degree domestic battery, false imprisonment,
possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court found
that Melody lacked credibility. The court also specifically addressed the drug-paraphernalia
and drug-possession charges, finding that the testimony that there were syringes loaded with
liquid methamphetamine and a bong next to Bull’s bed supported the determination that
Michael possessed both drugs and paraphernalia in violation of the terms of his SIS.
Michael was sentenced to ninety-six months’ incarceration in the Arkansas Division
of Correction (ADC) followed by twenty-four months’ SIS. Michael timely filed his notice of
appeal, and this appeal followed. On appeal, Michael challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence that he violated his SIS by battering and threatening Melody and by possessing
drugs and drug paraphernalia.
II. Discussion
4 In a revocation proceeding, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his or her
suspension or probation, and on appellate review, we do not reverse the circuit court’s
decision unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Flemons v. State, 2014
Ark. App. 131; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2023). Because the determination of
a preponderance of the evidence largely turns on credibility and the weight to be given
testimony, this court defers to a circuit court’s superior position in making credibility
determinations. Rhoades v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 730, 379 S.W.3d 659. Evidence that is
insufficient for a criminal conviction may be sufficient for a probation or suspended-sentence
revocation. Bradley v. State, 347 Ark. 518, 65 S.W.3d 874 (2002).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 282 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-24-618
MICHAEL BULL Opinion Delivered May 7, 2025 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16JCR-23-147] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
Michael Bull appeals the Craighead County Circuit Court’s decision revoking his
suspended imposition of sentence (SIS), arguing that there is insufficient evidence to support
the revocation. We affirm.
I. Relevant Facts
On July 10, 2023, Michael was sentenced to sixty months’ SIS after pleading guilty to
possessing between two and ten grams of methamphetamine. He was ordered to pay a $100
fine. The conditions listed in the SIS order included living a law-abiding life—specifically,
that he not commit any offense punishable by imprisonment and refrain from drug use and
possession.
On December 7, 2023, the State filed a petition for revocation asserting that Michael
violated the terms of his SIS by incurring five new charges: possession of a controlled substance—Schedule I/II, methamphetamine less than two grams; possession of drug
paraphernalia; first-degree terroristic threatening; third-degree domestic battery; and second-
degree false imprisonment.
At the revocation hearing, patrol officer Trevor Doepfer of the Jonesboro Police
Department testified that on November 18, 2023, he responded to a call from Melody Bull’s
coworkers at McDonald’s asking police to check on her. Officer Doepfer went to
McDonald’s and spoke with Melody, Michael Bull’s wife of fifteen years. Officer Doepfer
recalled that Melody looked as though she had been crying. Her eyes were red, and she had
a black eye and a cut on her bottom lip. He stated that she looked like she had been “hit.”
Melody told Officer Doepfer that she had been outside talking on the phone, when Michael
ordered her to go inside the house and then physically forced her back inside. An argument
ensued, and Michael punched her face, causing her nose to bleed. Melody told Officer
Doepfer that Michael threatened to drill screws into her legs. She calmed Michael down, and
eventually he fell asleep. While he slept, Melody wrote a note to Michael stating that she
wanted a divorce and left the house on foot. At that point, Melody called her former boss at
McDonald’s to come get her, and her former boss drove her to McDonald’s. After taking
Melody’s statement, Officer Doepfer went to the Bull residence to speak with Michael. By
the time he arrived, another officer had already handcuffed Michael, who was sitting on his
bed. On the nightstand next to the bed Officer Doepfer saw a bong with burn marks and a
white residue that was consistent with the appearance of burnt methamphetamine. Also on
the nightstand, Doepfer saw several unused hypodermic needles and two hypodermic
2 needles containing a dark brown liquid. He did not field test the substance, but in his
experience as a police officer, it appeared to be methamphetamine, and the needles were
loaded in a way that is common with methamphetamine use. He testified that he was “90%
certain” that the substance was methamphetamine, and the paraphernalia was used to ingest
methamphetamine. Officer Doepfer and the other officers performed a full parole search
and found a bag of needles in the television stand. No insulin or other injectable medication
was found in the home.
Melody testified that she did not remember what happened on November 18, 2023;
however, she did recall that she may have started an argument with Michael, then she left
the residence on foot and called her former boss at McDonald’s to pick her up. Melody was
covered in blood when her former boss picked her up, and she asked Melody—who had been
diagnosed with epilepsy two years earlier—if she had experienced a seizure. Melody testified
that the medication she was taking for her epilepsy affected her mood and memory. She did
not recall having a black eye and a cut lip that day, but she recounted other injuries she had
sustained related to her epilepsy. The State asked Melody about her statements to police that
Michael had struck her in the face, punched her in the eye, and threatened to drill screws
into her leg after accusing her of having a sexual relationship with his brother. Though
Melody remembered an officer coming to meet her at McDonald’s about an hour after she
arrived, she maintained that none of the statements she made to Officer Doepfer could be
true because Michael would not do that, and she must have made a mistake. Melody denied
that when she recanted her statement a few weeks before trial, she told the prosecutor that
3 she did not want her husband to go back to prison because of this. Melody agreed that her
trial testimony was the first time she stated that the events did not occur. Melody did not
remember any drugs or drug paraphernalia in their home and denied that any of it belonged
to her. Melody then stated that if there was methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in
the house, it belonged to both her and Michael.
At the close of the State’s evidence, Michael moved to dismiss the petition, and the
motion was denied. He renewed his motion at the close of all evidence.
The court delivered its ruling from the bench, finding by a preponderance of the
evidence that Michael inexcusably violated the terms of his probation by committing the
crimes of terroristic threatening, third-degree domestic battery, false imprisonment,
possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court found
that Melody lacked credibility. The court also specifically addressed the drug-paraphernalia
and drug-possession charges, finding that the testimony that there were syringes loaded with
liquid methamphetamine and a bong next to Bull’s bed supported the determination that
Michael possessed both drugs and paraphernalia in violation of the terms of his SIS.
Michael was sentenced to ninety-six months’ incarceration in the Arkansas Division
of Correction (ADC) followed by twenty-four months’ SIS. Michael timely filed his notice of
appeal, and this appeal followed. On appeal, Michael challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence that he violated his SIS by battering and threatening Melody and by possessing
drugs and drug paraphernalia.
II. Discussion
4 In a revocation proceeding, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his or her
suspension or probation, and on appellate review, we do not reverse the circuit court’s
decision unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Flemons v. State, 2014
Ark. App. 131; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2023). Because the determination of
a preponderance of the evidence largely turns on credibility and the weight to be given
testimony, this court defers to a circuit court’s superior position in making credibility
determinations. Rhoades v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 730, 379 S.W.3d 659. Evidence that is
insufficient for a criminal conviction may be sufficient for a probation or suspended-sentence
revocation. Bradley v. State, 347 Ark. 518, 65 S.W.3d 874 (2002). The rules of evidence do
not apply in revocation hearings. Ark. R. Evid. 1101(b)(3) (2023). The State need only prove
that the appellant committed one violation of the conditions to revoke appellant’s sentence.
Peals v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 1, 453 S.W.3d 151.
We focus our analysis on Michael’s second point on appeal regarding possession of
drug paraphernalia. Michael argues that the circuit court erred in finding that a
preponderance of the evidence supported the ground that he had committed the offenses of
possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Specifically, he
asserts that neither field testing nor crime-lab testing was performed on the substances or
paraphernalia, and no foundation was laid to show Officer Doepfer’s expertise in the
identification of drugs; therefore, Michael claims there is insufficient evidence that the
needles were drug paraphernalia, and they could have had legitimate uses. Michael, however,
5 does not challenge the court’s finding that the bong found on his nightstand next to his bed
was drug paraphernalia.
A bong is drug paraphernalia according to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-101(12)(B)(xii)(l)
(Supp. 2023). Michael’s failure to challenge the court’s finding regarding the bong is fatal to
his argument. As stated above, the State does not have to prove every allegation in its
petition, and proof of only one violation is sufficient to sustain a revocation. Springs v. State,
2017 Ark. App. 364, 525 S.W.3d 490. Accordingly, we need not address Michael’s other
arguments for reversal and affirm.
Affirmed.
HIXSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.