Tevin Randle v. State of Arkansas

2023 Ark. App. 234
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedApril 19, 2023
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2023 Ark. App. 234 (Tevin Randle v. State of Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tevin Randle v. State of Arkansas, 2023 Ark. App. 234 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 234 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-22-723

TEVIN RANDLE Opinion Delivered April 19, 2023 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PHILLIPS V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 54CR-17-161] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE CHALK MITCHELL, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

The Phillips County Circuit Court revoked the probation of appellant Tevin Randle

and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Randle argues that the trial court

erred in revoking his probation because the State failed to prove that he kidnapped China

Kirkland. He also challenges the admissibility of evidence of her prior inconsistent

statements. We affirm.

In 2018, Randle pleaded guilty to one count each of first-degree battery and unlawful

possession of a firearm in case No. 54CR-17-161. The court sentenced him to concurrent

terms of five years’ imprisonment followed by a sixty-month period of suspended imposition

of sentence upon his release. The terms and conditions of his sentences required, in part,

that he not commit any new offenses punishable by imprisonment. On January 21, 2022, the State filed a petition to revoke Randle’s suspended sentence, alleging he committed Class

Y felony kidnapping on October 21, 2021.

While Randle’s kidnapping case was pending, a revocation hearing was held and

established the following surrounding China Kirkland’s kidnapping and stabbing. Brian

Holloway, a Phillips County sheriff, received a report from another law enforcement agency

that Kirkland had been repeatedly stabbed in Mississippi after being taken from a residence

located in Phillips County. He was advised that Randle’s involvement in Kirkland’s

kidnapping was based on a statement she gave, and he arrested several in connection to the

incident.

Kirkland testified that the night of the incident, she and her boyfriend, Derrick

Williams, were at his house playing video games with Courtney Burkes. Williams lived with

his brother, Randle. Kirkland testified that she overheard Burkes tell Randle over speaker

phone that two pounds of marijuana was missing from the house. While her testimony

differed at trial, Kirkland acknowledged that she previously had informed law enforcement

that Randle and Kyle McIntosh were driving back from Little Rock and that Randle

instructed Burkes to “keep everyone there” and that no one could leave the residence until

he and McIntosh returned.

The two arrived a few hours later. McIntosh entered the residence first, followed by

Randle, who, according to Kirkland’s testimony, immediately “closed the door and locked

it[.]” She recalled that Burkes stood guard with a gun, and McIntosh, with knife in hand,

began questioning Kirkland about the missing marijuana. McIntosh then instructed Patrick

2 Davis, another person at the house, to go to the store to get duct tape and trash bags because

he was “going to kill [Kirkland].” Kirkland testified that Randle remained at the residence.

Upon Davis’s return, McIntosh bound Kirkland with duct tape and stuffed socks in her

mouth. Kirkland was then put in the trunk of Randle’s car, though Randle remained at the

residence. She was taken to Mississippi, where McIntosh and Davis dragged her out of the

trunk and into the woods. Davis stabbed her thirty-five times. Kirkland eventually played

dead, and they left her.

At the hearing, Kirkland admitted that her testimony was not consistent with what

she originally told the police. The State moved to introduce Kirkland’s recorded prior

inconsistent statement. Randle objected because he did not have a copy of the recording,

but the objection was overruled. At the hearing, Kirkland testified that Randle called her a

“bitch” and a “whore” but that he never had a firearm and never kidnapped her or kept her

from leaving the house. She also testified that he was not able to help or do anything to stop

McIntosh because he was being kidnapped, too, and that he was not able to call for help

because McIntosh and Davis took everyone’s phones.

Randle also took the stand and denied any participation in the kidnapping. On cross-

examination, he admitted that he had kidnapped someone in 2017, and when he was

interviewed about Kirkland’s kidnapping, he had lied to police when he told them that she

had not been at his residence.

In granting the State’s revocation petition, the court found in part:

3 [Randle] allowed the use of his car. He’s sitting at the table. I think the testimony came out on the statement what he was doing continuing to make money, selling drugs. I think that came out in the video. I’m going to allow the video. I’m going to give weight to that versus the testimony. I’m still trying to figure out what’s going on with this case. I know I would be afraid to come and testify. I think she’s told her story, but the details somehow come and go. think the best version of it was on the video that I watched today.

I think this defendant is just as guilty–part of this and cause though he didn’t do it himself, but could have done far more to stop it. I think this is actually a tragedy. I think it’s only a miracle that this young lady survived.

To revoke probation or a suspended sentence, the burden is on the State to prove the

violation of a condition of the probation or suspended sentence by a preponderance of the

evidence. Dunlap v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 202, at 4. The State need only prove one violation

of the terms and conditions of probation to sustain a revocation. Id. On appellate review,

the circuit court’s findings will be upheld unless they are clearly against the preponderance

of the evidence. Id. Because the burdens are different, evidence that is insufficient for a

criminal conviction may be sufficient for revocation of probation or suspended sentence. Id.

Furthermore, because the determination of a preponderance of the evidence turns on

questions of credibility and weight to be given to the testimony, we defer to the circuit court’s

superior position. Id.

Randle was charged with kidnapping pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-11-102 (Repl.

2013), which provides that a person commits the offense if, “without consent, the person

restrains another person so as to interfere substantially with the other person’s liberty with

the purpose of inflicting physical injury upon the other person.” A person acts purposely

4 with respect to his conduct or a result of his conduct when it is his conscious object to engage

in conduct of that nature or to cause that result. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(1) (Repl. 2013).

In defining kidnapping, the Criminal Code speaks in terms of restraint rather than

removal. Turner v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 5, at 5, 538 S.W.3d 227, 233–34. Hence, the statute

reaches a greater variety of conduct because restraint can be accomplished without removal.

Id. “Restraint without consent” includes restraint by physical force, threat, or deception. Ark.

Code Ann. § 5-11-101(3)(A) (Repl. 2013). Factors to be considered in determining whether

a kidnapping conviction is supportable include whether the restraint (1) prevented the victim

from summoning assistance; (2) lessened the defendant’s risk of detection; or (3) created a

significant danger or increased the victim’s risk of harm. Singleton-Harris v. State, 2014 Ark.

App. 436, at 4–5, 439 S.W.3d 720, 723.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Randle v. Payne
E.D. Arkansas, 2024
Eugene Hare v. State of Arkansas
2024 Ark. App. 223 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2024)
Carl Skaggs v. State of Arkansas
2023 Ark. App. 325 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 Ark. App. 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tevin-randle-v-state-of-arkansas-arkctapp-2023.