Hampton v. State
| Citation | 618 S.W.3d 178,2021 Ark. App. 75 |
| Decision Date | 17 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-19-967,CR-19-967 |
| Parties | Gregory HAMPTON, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Arkansas |
Skarda & Lonidier P.L.L.C., Jonesboro, by: Kirk B. Lonidier, for appellant.
One brief only.
Gregory Hampton appeals the order of the Clay County Circuit Court revoking his probation and sentencing him to eighteen months’ imprisonment in the Regional Correctional Facility followed by fifty-four months’ suspended imposition of sentence.1 Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Hampton's counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw asserting that there is no issue of arguable merit to raise on appeal.2 In his brief, counsel identifies two adverse rulings: the sufficiency of the evidence to support Hampton's revocation and the denial of Hampton's request to have his probation reinstated. From our review of the record and the brief presented, we find that counsel's brief is in compliance with Anders and Rule 4-3(k)(1) and that there are no issues of arguable merit to support reversal. Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
In April 2018, Gregory Hampton pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia, to ingest/inhale. He was sentenced to five years’ probation. As a condition of his probation, he agreed not to (1) commit a criminal act punishable by imprisonment; (2) use, sell, distribute, or possess any controlled substance; or (3) associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity.
On July 17, 2019, Hampton was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia. The Corning Police Department was aware of high traffic to and from a home located on Cherry Street in Corning. From observations of the home, officers learned that Hampton was an occupant. After confirming Hampton's probation status, they conducted a probation search of a residence. Hampton and two other people were present at the time of the search. During the search, officers found a clear glass pipe in a cabinet under the bathroom sink; the pipe field tested positive for methamphetamine. In Hampton's bedroom, officers searched a yellow toolbox with Hampton's name on it and found a water bong inside that field tested positive for methamphetamine. Officers also found a marijuana pipe in a barbecue grill just outside the residence. Hampton denied that the items seized during the search were his. He did, however, confirm that the home searched was his residence, even though the address of the home searched was different than the one Hampton had provided to his probation officer.
Approximately one month after his arrest, the State filed a petition to revoke, alleging that Hampton had willfully failed multiple drug screens, had failed to report a change of address to his probation officer, and had committed a criminal act punishable by imprisonment.3 Hampton pled not guilty to the revocation and proceeded to a revocation hearing. At the hearing, officers from the Corning Police Department testified concerning the events of July 17. The court also heard testimony from Hampton's probation officer confirming that Hampton had failed four drug screens and had failed to report a change of address.
After considering the evidence introduced at the revocation hearing, the trial court found that Hampton had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Specifically, the court found that Hampton had engaged in criminal activity given that a water bong that tested positive for methamphetamine had been found in a toolbox with his name on it and that he had failed multiple drug screens. The court revoked his probation and sentenced him to eighteen months in the regional correctional facility followed by fifty-four months’ suspended imposition of sentence.
Hampton appeals the revocation of his probation. In a revocation proceeding, the State carries the burden to prove a violation of a term or condition by a preponderance of the evidence. Baker v. State , 2016 Ark. App. 468, 2016 WL 5799478. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2019), a trial court may...
To continue reading
Request your trial