Phillip Jarrod Martin v. State of Arkansas

2024 Ark. App. 402, 695 S.W.3d 71

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: September 4, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 402 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-23-732

Opinion Delivered September 4, 2024 PHILLIP JARROD MARTIN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 02CR-12-112]

HONORABLE ROBERT B. GIBSON STATE OF ARKANSAS III, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

Phillip Martin appeals from the order of the Ashley County Circuit Court revoking

his suspended imposition of sentence (SIS). We affirm.

In July 2013, Martin pleaded guilty to first-degree battery and was sentenced to ten

years’ imprisonment and ten years’ SIS. In May 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke

alleging that Martin had committed new criminal offenses in violation of his SIS—specifically,

three counts of second-degree battery and one count of third-degree domestic battery. A

revocation hearing was held on July 10, 2023.

The testimony at the revocation hearing established that two deputies with the Ashley

County Sheriff’s Department responded to a 911 call regarding a domestic disturbance at

the Levee Inn. Deputy Derek Hill testified that he first made contact with a woman whose face was “busted really bad” and covered with blood. When Hill went to contact the other

party, Martin, he saw Deputy Levette Whitfield talking to him and told Whitfield to place

Martin in handcuffs until they could figure out what was going on. Hill testified that Martin

then backpedaled into a motel room and sat on a bed. Hill grabbed Martin by the wrist and

asked him to stand up. Martin stood up and started swinging. Hill said that Martin punched

him in his left eye, and as he fell backward, Martin struck Whitfield. Whitfield fell to the

floor, followed by Hill and Martin, as they continued to struggle. Hill felt Martin reaching

for his service weapon, and as Whitfield tried to pull Martin up, Hill sprayed him with

pepper spray. Martin struck both Hill and Whitfield again before Hill pulled his weapon

and held Martin at gunpoint on the ground until backup arrived.

Whitfield testified that Martin punched her in the face, and she suffered injuries to

her shoulder and knee from her body striking the wall during the struggle. Jacob Meeks of

the Crossett Police Department testified that he arrived while Hill was holding Martin at

gunpoint and that when Hill reholstered his weapon, Martin began fighting again and hit

Meeks in his knee, causing injury. The circuit court found by a preponderance of the

evidence that Martin had violated the condition of his SIS that prohibited Martin from

committing any felony, misdemeanor, or other criminal offense punishable by confinement

in jail or prison. The circuit court revoked Martin’s SIS and sentenced him to thirty years’

imprisonment and ten years’ SIS.

To revoke a suspended sentence, the State bears the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of the suspended

2 sentence. Daniels v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 473, 588 S.W.3d 116. On appeal, a circuit court’s

revocation of a suspended sentence will be affirmed unless the decision is clearly against the

preponderance of the evidence. Id. Evidence that is insufficient for a criminal conviction

may be sufficient for revocation of a suspended sentence. Id. Because the determination of

a preponderance of the evidence turns on questions of credibility and the weight to be given

testimony, we defer to the circuit court’s superior position. Chambers v. State, 2018 Ark.

App. 69, 540 S.W.3d 316.

Martin argues that the State failed to prove the elements of second-degree battery. A

person commits battery in the second degree if, among other things, the person knowingly,

without legal justification, causes physical injury to or incapacitates a person he or she knows

to be a law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in the line of duty.

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-202(a)(4)(A)(i) (Supp. 2023). Martin contends that the officers were

not “acting in the line of duty” because they lacked probable cause to arrest him for domestic

battery without a warrant and because they entered his motel room in violation of his Fourth

Amendment expectation of privacy.

While Martin challenges the actions of Deputies Hill and Whitfield in attempting to

handcuff him in the motel room, he makes no argument that Officer Meeks was not acting

in the line of duty when he responded as backup. Meeks testified that he heard Deputy Hill

in distress over the radio, and when Meeks arrived, he saw Hill, with blood all over his face,

holding Martin at gunpoint in a room fogged with pepper spray. Acting in the line of duty,

Meeks attempted to grab Martin’s arm when Martin caused physical injury to him. We defer

3 to the circuit court’s superior position regarding questions of credibility and the weight to

be given testimony. Chambers, supra. Martin was alleged to have committed second-degree

battery with respect to Meeks, and the circuit court determined that Martin violated the

condition of his SIS that prohibited him from committing any criminal offense punishable

by confinement. The State need only show that the appellant committed one violation in

order to sustain a revocation. Chambers, supra. Under these circumstances, we hold that the

elements of second-degree battery were met and affirm the revocation.

Affirmed.

GLADWIN and GRUBER, JJ., agree.

Dusti Standridge, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.