Tyrique K. Skinner v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. App. 224

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: May 5, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 224 Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS I attest to the accuracy and DIVISION II integrity of this document No. CR-20-722 2023.06.27 11:48:41 -05'00' 2023.001.20174 Opinion Delivered: May 5, 2021 TYRIQUE K. SKINNER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16JCR-16-1101] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE TONYA M. ALEXANDER, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

The appellant, Tyrique Skinner, appeals the circuit court’s order revoking his

probation. He argues that the revocation is clearly against the preponderance of the

evidence, which, he says, demonstrated that he did not willfully violate the conditions of

his supervised release. We affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

On June 7, 2018, Skinner pleaded guilty to two counts of breaking and entering and

two counts of theft of property. The circuit court ordered him to serve three years’

supervised probation and pay restitution in the amount of $1,463.66.

On October 11, 2018, the State filed a petition to revoke Skinner’s probation,

alleging that he had violated the conditions of his supervised release. Specifically, the State

alleged that Skinner “failed to live a crime-free life and committed the crimes of forgery, possession of a firearm by certain persons, and possession of marijuana in Crittenden County,

Arkansas, on or about August 19, 2018.” According to the petition, Skinner “was associating

with known felons” during the incident and “was in possession of marijuana.” The State

further alleged that Skinner also had “a balance due of $1,913.66 to the Craighead County

Sheriff’s Office for restitution, fines, and court costs.”

The State followed with an amended petition to revoke on April 8, 2020. The

amended petition incorporated the allegations in the original petition filed on October 11,

2018, and alleged that Skinner had violated several more conditions of his probation. In

particular, the amended petition alleged that Skinner failed to report as directed to his

supervising officer and failed to appear for a hearing on March 10, 2020. The amended

petition further alleged that Skinner was “$205.00 in arrears in supervision fees” and that he

willfully failed to pay “a total balance of $2,083.66 due to the Craighead County Sheriff’s

Office for restitution, fines, and court costs.” Finally, the amended petition included an

Arkansas Community Correction violation report that, among other things, indicated that

Skinner had positive drug tests and had been charged with a “new misdemeanor” on August

5, 2019.

At the revocation hearing on September 9, 2020, Skinner’s probation officer, Adrian

Harris, testified that he first reported that Skinner had violated his probation on December

21, 2019. At that time, Officer Harris alleged that Skinner failed to report to him as directed

on November 13 and December 11, 2019. Officer Harris’s subsequent attempts to contact

Skinner also failed until January 16, 2020, when Skinner was arrested on misdemeanor

2 charges. Officer Harris testified that regular contact with Skinner resumed until Skinner

failed to report as ordered on July 13, 2020.

Becky Mahon, the fine and fee collector for the Craighead County Sheriff’s Office,

also testified. According to Ms. Mahon, Skinner had not made any payment toward the

restitution, fines, and court costs that he owed, and he still had an outstanding balance of

$2,143.66.

For his part, Skinner testified that he was eighteen years old when he pleaded guilty

to breaking and entering and theft of property in June 2018. He explained that he did not

report as ordered on November 13 and December 11, 2019, because he was trying to find

employment that would allow him the income to pay the restitution, fines, and court costs

that he owed. Regarding his failure to report on July 13, 2020, Skinner testified that he had

been “going through a lot,” including his mother’s “medical issues” and the loss of utility

service to his home. Skinner also said that he did not have a phone or anyone to drive him

to his probation appointments. He further claimed that he attempted to explain all of these

circumstances to Officer Harris, but “he wasn’t listening.”

Regarding his unpaid restitution, fines and costs, Skinner testified that his father told

him “he was paying it,” and that Skinner himself “was young,” and “didn’t know anything

about it.” He also testified, however, that he was employed at Riceland Foods and “could

start paying on it now.”

Skinner also testified about his arrests since he started serving probation. He

acknowledged that he had been arrested on August 19, 2018, for possession of a firearm and

possession of marijuana—as alleged in the original petition to revoke—but testified that

3 those charges had been “thrown out.” Skinner also denied that he had been associating with

known felons during that incident. He admitted, however, that months later, in March

2019, he failed a drug test for marijuana. Skinner also acknowledged that he had been

arrested in January 2020—when Officer Harris found him in the county jail—for possession

of marijuana, and after initially claiming that charge had also been dismissed, he admitted

that he had pleaded guilty in August 2020. On examination by the circuit court, Skinner

further admitted that he could not pass a drug test for marijuana and that he last smoked the

substance “a week or two ago.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court announced from the bench that it

was revoking Skinner’s probation on the bases of his failure to report as ordered; his guilty

plea to possession of marijuana; and his failure to pay restitution, fines, and court costs. The

circuit court later entered a sentencing order that revoked Skinner’s probation and sentenced

him to a three-year term of incarceration in a community-correction facility followed by

two years’ suspended imposition of sentence. Skinner filed a timely notice of appeal on

September 28, 2020.

II. Discussion

Skinner contends that the revocation of his probation should be reversed because it

is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, he appears to argue that

the circuit court overlooked the reasonable explanations that he offered to explain his failure

to report and pay his restitution, fines, and court costs as ordered. The State responds that

Skinner’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are procedurally barred because he

fails to also challenge the circuit court’s alternative basis for revoking his probation—his

4 conviction for possession of marijuana. The State alternatively contends that the revocation

is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

We have held that we will affirm “[w]hen a circuit court bases its decision . . . on

multiple independent grounds, and [an] appellant fails to attack any [one] of [the] alternative

bases[.]” Clark v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 362, at 5, 584 S.W.3d 680, 683. To sustain a

revocation of probation, moreover, the State must show only that the defendant committed

one violation. Springs v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 364, at 3, 525 S.W.3d 490, 492.

We agree that Skinner’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are procedurally

barred. Skinner challenges only the circuit court’s findings that he failed to report as ordered

and failed to pay his restitution, fines, and costs. He does not challenge the circuit court’s

other basis for revoking his probation—his conviction for possession of marijuana.

Therefore, because Skinner’s guilty plea for possession of marijuana independently supports

the revocation of his probation, and he fails to challenge it here, we must affirm. 1

Affirmed.

VIRDEN and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

1 The State correctly points out that Skinner’s guilty plea to possession of marijuana was not specifically alleged in the State’s petition to revoke his probation. Skinner made no objection in the circuit court, however, to the revocation of his probation on that basis.