Blankenship v. State
| Decision Date | 12 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. CR–13–612.,CR–13–612. |
| Citation | 2014 Ark. App. 104 |
| Parties | Melody Jane BLANKENSHIP, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Lisa–Marie Norris, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Melody Jane Blankenship appeals a Crawford County Circuit Court's order revoking her suspended imposition of sentence for failure to complete a community-service obligation. Blankenship contends that the community-service obligation was not a condition of her suspended sentence and that a failure to perform her community-service requirements could not result in revocation of her suspended sentence. Given the purpose of the written notice requirements of Arkansas Code Annotated Section 5–4–303, and our duty to construe criminal statutes strictly, resolving all doubts in favor of the defendant, we agree and reverse.
On June 8, 2009, Blankenship pled guilty to multiple charges. The court sentenced her to a combined total of twelve years in the Arkansas Department of Correction, with an additional ten years suspended, and ordered her to pay restitution in $100 monthly installments. The court further imposed eight conditions on her suspended sentence, including a condition requiring compliance with "special conditions" imposed by the court. However, no "special conditions" were specifically or separately listed under the heading so designated in the order. The conditions were signed by the judge and acknowledged by Blankenship. Community service was not one of the conditions ordered by the court.
On April 11, 2012, the State filed a petition to revoke/show cause, alleging that Blankenship had violated the terms and conditions of her suspended sentence by committing a new offense and by failing to pay restitution as ordered. Blankenship entered into negotiations with the State, pled guilty to contempt, and paid $2,000 toward her restitution in lieu of having her suspended sentence revoked. The trial court found her in contempt and entered an order directing her to perform twenty days of community service at the Crawford County Courthouse. The order also directed her to begin making $100 monthly restitution payments and noted that "[a]ll other terms and conditions remain in full force and effect." Nothing in this order specifically advised Blankenship that failure to perform her community service could result in revocation of her suspended sentence or that community service was being imposed as a condition of her suspended sentence.
On January 22, 2013, the State again filed a petition to revoke/show cause. The petition alleged that Blankenship had (1) failed to make any payments toward her restitution, (2) failed to comply with the rules and regulations of her community service, (3) failed to comply with the rules and regulations of her probation, and (4) committed additional crimes-including theft of properly, burglary, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to ingest or inhale methamphetamine/cocaine—in violation of the terms and conditions of her suspended sentence.
At the hearing on the petition to revoke, the State presented only one witness—Junior Bing, the Crawford County Community Service Supervisor. Bing testified that Blankenship had not completed her community service. The State did not put on any evidence that Blankenship failed to pay restitution, violated the terms of her probation, or that she committed the additional crimes listed above. As a result, defense counsel moved for a directed verdict on the basis that the State had failed in its burden of proving those allegations. The trial court granted the motion, leaving the failure to perform community service as the only remaining allegation supporting revocation. Defense counsel then argued that Blankenship could not be revoked on the remaining allegation because she was never provided with written notice that the community-service obligation had been added to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valencia v. State
...conditions that were not expressly communicated in writing to a defendant as a condition of his or her suspended sentence. Blankenship v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 104. However, there is no corollary requirement that the defendant sign a written acknowledgment when he or she receives the writte......