Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 287 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-24-619
MICHAEL GOODSON Opinion Delivered May 7, 2025
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16JCR-22-285] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge
Appellant Michael Goodson appeals the revocation of his suspended imposition of
sentence (SIS) by the Craighead County Circuit Court. He argues that the circuit court
erred in denying his motion to dismiss the petition to revoke based on insufficient evidence.
We affirm.
Goodson pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, two to ten grams, a Class
C felony, in case number 16JCR-22-285, on January 10, 2023. The circuit court sentenced
him to eighteen months in the Division of Community Correction and thirty-six months’
SIS. The terms and conditions of his SIS included that he not commit a new offense
punishable by imprisonment or possess any controlled substances. The State filed a petition
to revoke Goodson’s SIS on May 9, 2024, alleging that Goodson had failed to live a law- abiding life and was found to be in possession of methamphetamine on April 9, 2024. The
petition sought to revoke three probationary sentences: the present case, 16JCR-22-285;
16JCR-17-1615, a 2021 guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine for which appellant
was serving five years’ probation; and 16JCR-17-1007, a 2021 guilty plea to possession of
methamphetamine for which appellant was serving five years’ SIS.1
The revocation hearing on the State’s petition to revoke on all three cases took place
on June 11, 2024. The State called two witnesses, Officer Faith Kelemen and Officer Greg
Trout of the Jonesboro Police Department. Officer Kelemen testified that on April 9, 2024,
shortly after 11:00 p.m., she pulled Goodson over because he was driving a car with fictitious
tags and an improperly displayed license plate. Goodson was the only occupant of the car.
Goodson provided his identification and informed Officer Kelemen that he was on parole.
Officer Kelemen had him exit the car, and other Jonesboro police officers joined her to
conduct a parole search of Goodson’s person and car. During the search, one of the officers
informed Officer Kelemen that he had recently stopped Goodson and that Goodson’s
modus operandi was to “slow roll” when he was being pulled over and throw contraband
out of the driver’s–side window while turning right. Upon receiving this information,
Officer Kelemen walked back in the direction from which the car had approached and
discovered a small bag that contained 1.25 grams of methamphetamine on the ground where
1 The circuit court held a combined revocation hearing for all three cases but issued separate sentencing orders in each case. Goodson has filed separate appeals, and today we hand down opinions in all three cases. See Goodson v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 286; Goodson v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 288.
2 Goodson had turned right. The location of the contraband was approximately ten to fifteen
yards behind where Goodson had finally stopped the car. She arrested Goodson for
possession and for tampering with the evidence by throwing it out the car window. Goodson
denied that it was his bag of methamphetamine. Officer Kelemen testified that in two and a
half years of being an officer, she had never seen bags of methamphetamine just “lying
around.”
The State called Officer Greg Trout, who had conducted a traffic stop of Goodson
on March 19, 2024. When he pulled Goodson over, Goodson “slow rolled” before turning
right. After releasing Goodson, and as he was returning to his unit, Officer Trout discovered
a bag of methamphetamine and a pipe on the ground where Goodson had slowly driven
through the intersection and turned right. The contraband was about ten yards behind
where Goodson’s car had come to a stop. Flash forward to April 9, 2024, and Officer Trout
arrives on the scene when Officer Kelemen stops Goodson. He informed Officer Kelemen
of Goodson’s previous ploy, and when they walked back to where Goodson crept through
the intersection and turned right, they found a bag of methamphetamine. Officer Trout
testified that sometimes it may happen that someone leaves a bag of methamphetamine
somewhere but not in close proximity to a traffic stop with a bag of methamphetamine and
a pipe together as he had found during his traffic stop. And, it was a fairly busy intersection,
and the glass pipe had not been broken. He testified that a reasonable officer would think
that Goodson had dropped the methamphetamine from the car.
3 At the close of the State’s case, Goodson moved to dismiss, which was denied by the
court. He renewed his motion after declining to present any evidence of his own and resting
his case. The court again denied the motion. The court found that Goodson had
inexcusably violated the terms and conditions of all three of his probated sentences and, in
the present case, sentenced Goodson to 102 months’ imprisonment. Goodson appealed all
three revocations and argues on appeal that the State failed to prove possession of
methamphetamine by a preponderance of the evidence.
In order to prevail in a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably failed to comply with at least
one condition of his probation or SIS. Ames v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 434, 698 S.W.3d 668.
On appellate review, we will not reverse the circuit court’s decision unless it is clearly against
the preponderance of the evidence. Id. This court defers to the circuit court’s superior
position on questions of credibility and the weight to be given testimony. Id. Because the
burden of proof in a revocation proceeding is less than that in a criminal case, proof that
would be insufficient to obtain a criminal conviction may be sufficient to support a
revocation. Id. We review the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
State. Passmore v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 425, 698 S.W.3d 400.
It is undisputed that the conditions of Goodson’s SIS included not committing any
crimes punishable by imprisonment and not possessing any controlled substances for illegal
use. It goes without saying that possessing methamphetamine would constitute a violation
of at least two conditions of his SIS. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-64-419(b)(1)(A) (Repl. 2024);
4 5-4-401(a)(5) (Repl. 2024). However, the contraband in this case was not found in
Goodson’s actual possession. Thus, this case concerns an issue of constructive possession.
It is not necessary for the State to prove literal physical possession of contraband as a
basis for revocation; it is enough for the State to prove constructive possession. Knauls v.
State, 2020 Ark. App. 48, 593 S.W.3d 58. This court has said that constructive possession
of contraband is the knowledge of its presence and control over it. Williams v. State, 2024
Ark. App. 570, 702 S.W.3d 431. A defendant’s knowledge of and control over the
contraband can be inferred from the circumstances. Knauls, supra. Factors to consider in
determining whether the defendant had knowledge and control over the contraband include
proximity of the contraband to the accused, the fact that the contraband is in plain view, the
ownership of the property where the contraband is found, and the accused’s suspicious
behavior. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 287 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-24-619
MICHAEL GOODSON Opinion Delivered May 7, 2025
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16JCR-22-285] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge
Appellant Michael Goodson appeals the revocation of his suspended imposition of
sentence (SIS) by the Craighead County Circuit Court. He argues that the circuit court
erred in denying his motion to dismiss the petition to revoke based on insufficient evidence.
We affirm.
Goodson pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, two to ten grams, a Class
C felony, in case number 16JCR-22-285, on January 10, 2023. The circuit court sentenced
him to eighteen months in the Division of Community Correction and thirty-six months’
SIS. The terms and conditions of his SIS included that he not commit a new offense
punishable by imprisonment or possess any controlled substances. The State filed a petition
to revoke Goodson’s SIS on May 9, 2024, alleging that Goodson had failed to live a law- abiding life and was found to be in possession of methamphetamine on April 9, 2024. The
petition sought to revoke three probationary sentences: the present case, 16JCR-22-285;
16JCR-17-1615, a 2021 guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine for which appellant
was serving five years’ probation; and 16JCR-17-1007, a 2021 guilty plea to possession of
methamphetamine for which appellant was serving five years’ SIS.1
The revocation hearing on the State’s petition to revoke on all three cases took place
on June 11, 2024. The State called two witnesses, Officer Faith Kelemen and Officer Greg
Trout of the Jonesboro Police Department. Officer Kelemen testified that on April 9, 2024,
shortly after 11:00 p.m., she pulled Goodson over because he was driving a car with fictitious
tags and an improperly displayed license plate. Goodson was the only occupant of the car.
Goodson provided his identification and informed Officer Kelemen that he was on parole.
Officer Kelemen had him exit the car, and other Jonesboro police officers joined her to
conduct a parole search of Goodson’s person and car. During the search, one of the officers
informed Officer Kelemen that he had recently stopped Goodson and that Goodson’s
modus operandi was to “slow roll” when he was being pulled over and throw contraband
out of the driver’s–side window while turning right. Upon receiving this information,
Officer Kelemen walked back in the direction from which the car had approached and
discovered a small bag that contained 1.25 grams of methamphetamine on the ground where
1 The circuit court held a combined revocation hearing for all three cases but issued separate sentencing orders in each case. Goodson has filed separate appeals, and today we hand down opinions in all three cases. See Goodson v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 286; Goodson v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 288.
2 Goodson had turned right. The location of the contraband was approximately ten to fifteen
yards behind where Goodson had finally stopped the car. She arrested Goodson for
possession and for tampering with the evidence by throwing it out the car window. Goodson
denied that it was his bag of methamphetamine. Officer Kelemen testified that in two and a
half years of being an officer, she had never seen bags of methamphetamine just “lying
around.”
The State called Officer Greg Trout, who had conducted a traffic stop of Goodson
on March 19, 2024. When he pulled Goodson over, Goodson “slow rolled” before turning
right. After releasing Goodson, and as he was returning to his unit, Officer Trout discovered
a bag of methamphetamine and a pipe on the ground where Goodson had slowly driven
through the intersection and turned right. The contraband was about ten yards behind
where Goodson’s car had come to a stop. Flash forward to April 9, 2024, and Officer Trout
arrives on the scene when Officer Kelemen stops Goodson. He informed Officer Kelemen
of Goodson’s previous ploy, and when they walked back to where Goodson crept through
the intersection and turned right, they found a bag of methamphetamine. Officer Trout
testified that sometimes it may happen that someone leaves a bag of methamphetamine
somewhere but not in close proximity to a traffic stop with a bag of methamphetamine and
a pipe together as he had found during his traffic stop. And, it was a fairly busy intersection,
and the glass pipe had not been broken. He testified that a reasonable officer would think
that Goodson had dropped the methamphetamine from the car.
3 At the close of the State’s case, Goodson moved to dismiss, which was denied by the
court. He renewed his motion after declining to present any evidence of his own and resting
his case. The court again denied the motion. The court found that Goodson had
inexcusably violated the terms and conditions of all three of his probated sentences and, in
the present case, sentenced Goodson to 102 months’ imprisonment. Goodson appealed all
three revocations and argues on appeal that the State failed to prove possession of
methamphetamine by a preponderance of the evidence.
In order to prevail in a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably failed to comply with at least
one condition of his probation or SIS. Ames v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 434, 698 S.W.3d 668.
On appellate review, we will not reverse the circuit court’s decision unless it is clearly against
the preponderance of the evidence. Id. This court defers to the circuit court’s superior
position on questions of credibility and the weight to be given testimony. Id. Because the
burden of proof in a revocation proceeding is less than that in a criminal case, proof that
would be insufficient to obtain a criminal conviction may be sufficient to support a
revocation. Id. We review the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
State. Passmore v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 425, 698 S.W.3d 400.
It is undisputed that the conditions of Goodson’s SIS included not committing any
crimes punishable by imprisonment and not possessing any controlled substances for illegal
use. It goes without saying that possessing methamphetamine would constitute a violation
of at least two conditions of his SIS. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-64-419(b)(1)(A) (Repl. 2024);
4 5-4-401(a)(5) (Repl. 2024). However, the contraband in this case was not found in
Goodson’s actual possession. Thus, this case concerns an issue of constructive possession.
It is not necessary for the State to prove literal physical possession of contraband as a
basis for revocation; it is enough for the State to prove constructive possession. Knauls v.
State, 2020 Ark. App. 48, 593 S.W.3d 58. This court has said that constructive possession
of contraband is the knowledge of its presence and control over it. Williams v. State, 2024
Ark. App. 570, 702 S.W.3d 431. A defendant’s knowledge of and control over the
contraband can be inferred from the circumstances. Knauls, supra. Factors to consider in
determining whether the defendant had knowledge and control over the contraband include
proximity of the contraband to the accused, the fact that the contraband is in plain view, the
ownership of the property where the contraband is found, and the accused’s suspicious
behavior. Id. Additional considerations include the improbability that anyone other than
the accused placed the contraband in the location where it is found and the accused’s
unlikely explanations. Block v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 83, 455 S.W.3d 335. “There is no
requirement that all or even a majority of the linking factors be present to constitute
constructive possession of the contraband.” Freeman v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 584, at 4–5,
701 S.W.3d 57, 60. See also Farris v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 188, 686 S.W.3d 602.
Constructive possession can be found even where the contraband is in a public and outdoor
location as in the present case. See Burnsed v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 43, 704 S.W.3d 370.
This case is akin to Burnsed, a case in which officers stopped the appellant because he
was riding a bicycle after hours in a public park. As the appellant came to a stop on his
5 bicycle he awkwardly dismounted and stood with his legs very far apart. The officers found
a small bag of methamphetamine near his feet. This court found the evidence sufficient to
support constructive possession of a controlled substance and affirmed the revocation of the
appellant’s SIS.
In the present case, when the officer pulled Goodson over, instead of pulling to the
shoulder, Goodson slowly rolled until he had an opportunity to turn right, then he took the
right-hand turn and rolled to a stop. The contraband was found where Goodson had turned
and where Goodson’s car would have blocked the officer’s view of his throwing something
out his window. In Burnsed, the contraband was by the appellant’s feet in a public park,
whereas in the present case, the contraband was several yards behind the appellant’s car on
a public roadway. However, in both cases, the officers did not see the appellant drop
anything on the ground. And, in both cases, the accused suggested that anyone could have
dropped the drugs on the ground because they were in a public place. Moreover, in the
present case, it is highly suspicious that twice, while being pulled over in a traffic stop,
Goodson “slow rolled” through an intersection and turned right before rolling to a stop. In
both traffic stops, officers found a small bag of methamphetamine where he had made his
turn. In the present case, as in Burnsed, the most logical and probable explanation for the
presence of the drugs was that the accused had frantically offloaded them while being
stopped by the police. In Burnsed, we found that sufficient evidence supported the circuit
court’s determination that the appellant constructively possessed the contraband, and we
find the same in the present case.
6 Goodson relies on Hodge v. State, 303 Ark. 375, 797 S.W.2d 432 (1990), and Garner
v. State, 355 Ark. 82, 131 S.W.3d 734 (2003), in support of his argument that since the drugs
were found outside of his immediate control and in a public area, there was insufficient
evidence to support the circuit court’s finding of constructive possession. In addition to
having factual distinctions, both of those cases were appeals from criminal convictions and, as
such, required proof of possession beyond a reasonable doubt. The State’s burden of proof
in the present case, a revocation proceeding, was by a preponderance of the evidence. As
this court has stated, “The State’s burden of proof in a revocation proceeding is less than
that required to convict in a criminal trial, and evidence that is insufficient for a conviction
thus may be sufficient for a revocation.” Springs v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 364, at 3, 525
S.W.3d 490, 492. The evidence in this case proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
Goodson possessed methamphetamine.
The circuit court’s finding that Goodson possessed methamphetamine in violation
of the terms and conditions of his SIS is supported by sufficient evidence.
Affirmed.
HARRISON and BARRETT, JJ., agree.
Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.