M.L. v. State, CA12-509

• Decision Date: 27 February 2013
• Docket Number: No. CA12-509,CA12-509
• Citation: 2013 Ark. App. 130
• Parties: M.L. APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

2013 Ark. App. 130

M.L. APPELLANT

v.STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

No. CA12-509

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III

Opinion Delivered February 27, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. JV-2011-336]

HONORABLE LEE FERGUS, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge

Appellant M.L. appeals from the revocation of his probationary sentence by the Craighead County Circuit Court Juvenile Division, claiming that the State failed to prove that he committed an act of terroristic threatening. We affirm.

On April 18, 2012, appellant was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court in Craighead County for disorderly conduct. He was sentenced to a deferred thirty-day commitment in the Craighead County Juvenile Detention Center, six months of supervised probation, and forty hours of community service, and he was ordered to pay fines and costs. Appellant's terms and conditions of probation ordered him to obey all state, federal, and municipal laws and be of good behavior.

On April 23, 2012, the State filed a petition to revoke, alleging that on April 18, 2012, appellant committed terroristic threatening in the first degree in violation of his probation.The charge stemmed from an incident at a park—on the same day he was initially placed on probation—when appellant was asked to leave the park due to his argumentative behavior and his refusal to allow the smaller children their basketball court time. According to two employees of the park, police were called when appellant refused to leave and began to issue threats about returning with a gun. Officers were dispatched to the park and then went to appellant's house where they talked to appellant's mother, contacted the juvenile-probation officer, and placed appellant into custody.

At the hearing, the two employees testified that appellant threatened the children and the employees, particularly the male employee, and that once he realized that the police were on their way, he left the park to go to his house. The arresting officer testified that he went to appellant's house, talked to appellant and his mother, and then notified the juvenile-probation officer who asked that appellant be taken into custody.

The trial judge held that appellant violated the terms of his probation by committing a new crime of terroristic threatening, revoked his probated sentence, sentenced him to ninety days in the Craighead County Juvenile Detention Center and one-year probation, and ordered him to pay fines and costs as well as abide by previous orders. A timely notice of appeal and designation of record were filed.

Under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-399 (Repl. 2011), a juvenile court may revoke a juvenile's probation if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile violated the terms and conditions of probation. R.W. v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 220. The State need only show that the appellant committed one violation in order to sustain arevocation. Brock v. State, 70 Ark. App. l07, 14 S.W.3d 908 (2000). On appeal, the juvenile court's findings will be upheld unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. Because the determination of a preponderance of the evidence turns on questions of credibility and weight to be given testimony, appellate courts defer to the trial judge's superior position to gauge these matters. Williams v. State, 351 Ark. 229, 91 S.W.3d 68 (2002).

Appellant claims that the testimony of his mother indicates that they were unsure whether he had been placed on probation at the time of the incident at the park. His mother testified that she did not recall having signed papers attesting to that fact. But appellant acknowledges that his mother did admit that she and her son had been in court the same morning of the incident and that she recalled that the trial court had ordered him to be placed on probation. His distinction, however, is that his mother did not realize that appellant's probation was already in effect at the time this incident occurred. Appellant submits that the trial court should not have found him guilty of violating the terms and conditions of his probation because there was a question as to whether appellant actually understood the terms of probation and that the actual probationary sentence was in effect.

We disagree and hold that the trial court's findings are not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Amy...