Morgan v. State
| Decision Date | 08 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-19-801,CR-19-801 |
| Citation | 2020 Ark. App. 212,599 S.W.3d 665 |
| Parties | Carl Gene MORGAN, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Y. Yarbrough, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Carl Gene Morgan brings this appeal from the revocation of his probation, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the court’s decision.
On June 19, 2017, Morgan pleaded guilty to violating Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-36-103(b)(3)(A) (Supp. 2019), theft of property, a class D felony. He was sentenced to forty-eight months’ probation. His probation was revoked on November 30, 2017, pursuant to a guilty plea, and the court sentenced him to sixty months’ probation. On April 16, 2019, the State filed a petition to revoke alleging that Morgan violated the terms and conditions of his probation by committing the misdemeanor offense of public intoxication; testing positive for methamphetamine; and failing to pay fines, fees, and costs.
The Greene County Circuit Court held a bench trial on June 27, 2019. Tammy Case, the circuit clerk secretary for the Greene County Sheriff’s Department, testified that she collected the filing fees and fines. She explained that Morgan had made only one payment, in September 2018, since his fines and fees were imposed in June 2017. She said he had made no payments since the payment in September 2018.
Morgan’s probation officer, Andrew Spillman, testified that Morgan had failed to pay supervision fees on at least five occasions. He also stated that Morgan had tested positive for methamphetamine on October 1, 2018, and on February 19, 2019. Finally, Mr. Spillman testified that appellant was charged with public intoxication on April 4, 2019. The arresting officer also testified, confirming that he had arrested Morgan for public intoxication.
The circuit court revoked his probation, finding that the State had proved all the allegations contained in the petition for revocation, and sentenced Morgan to forty-eight months’ imprisonment.
Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-308(d) (Repl. 2017), a circuit court may revoke a defendant’s probation at any time prior to the expiration of the period of probation if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of the probation. Springs v. State , 2017 Ark. App. 364, at 3, 525 S.W.3d 490, 492. The State’s burden of proof in a revocation proceeding is less than is required to convict in a criminal trial, and evidence that is insufficient for a conviction may be sufficient for a revocation. Vangilder v. State , 2018 Ark. App. 385, at 3, 555 S.W.3d 413, 415. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal from an order of revocation, the circuit court’s decision will not be reversed unless its findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. McClain v. State , 2016 Ark. App. 205, at 3, 489 S.W.3d 179, 181.
On appeal, Morgan challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation. He first argues that the State failed to introduce the terms and conditions of his probation and that it was unclear whether the circuit court was aware of them. This issue is not preserved for our review because Morgan failed to raise this argument at trial. While an appellant may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for the first time on appeal in a revocation case without having moved for a directed verdict, Cotta v. State , 2013 Ark. App. 117, at 3, 2013 WL 625735, we will not address a procedural challenge unless it was adequately...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Workman v. State
...a copy of the conditions of a probation is a procedural objection that must be raised before the circuit court. Morgan v. State , 2020 Ark. App. 212, at 3, 599 S.W.3d 665, 667 ; Myers v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 720, 451 S.W.3d 588. An appellant cannot raise this procedural argument for the f......
- Lacy v. State
-
Matney v. State
...to convict in a criminal trial, and evidence that is insufficient for a conviction may be sufficient for a revocation. Morgan v. State , 2020 Ark. App. 212, 599 S.W.3d 665. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal from an order of revocation, the trial court's decision w......
-
Duvall v. State
...appellant challenges only four of the five grounds, we will affirm without addressing the merits of any of them. See Morgan v. State , 2020 Ark. App. 212, 599 S.W.3d 665. We recognize that in his reply brief, Duvall argues that there was also insufficient evidence to support the violation o......