Phillips v. State
| Decision Date | 23 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. CA CR 07-391.,CA CR 07-391. |
| Citation | 272 S.W.3d 123,101 Ark. App. 190 |
| Parties | Garland Ray PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Kathy L. Hall, Little Rock, AR, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Farhan Khan, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Garland Phillips appeals the January 16, 2007, revocation of his suspended imposition of sentence by the Crawford County Circuit Court. Phillips argues that the trial court erred when it refused to consider whether his failure to pay fines and restitution was "inexcusable." We agree and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On September 20, 2005, Phillips pled guilty to one count of overdraft in case number CR 04-444-2. His sentence was suspended based on the following terms and conditions: that he pay $911.74 restitution at the rate of fifty dollars per month beginning on October 10, 2005; that, upon completing his restitution payments, he pay a $1250 fine and $150 in court costs at the rate of fifty dollars per month; that he provide a DNA sample; and that he pay a DNA fee of $250.
On February 16, 2006, Phillips pled guilty to two counts of battery in the second degree in case number CR 05-148-2. His sentence was suspended based on the following terms and conditions: that he pay a $750 fine and $150 in court costs at the rate of twenty-five dollars per month, beginning on March 6, 2006; that he provide a DNA sample; and that he pay a DNA fee of $250. The $250 DNA fee was later waived by court order.
The State petitioned to revoke Phillips's suspended imposition on May 22, 2006, alleging that Phillips violated the conditions of his suspended sentences by failing to pay fines, costs and restitution, and by failing to submit a DNA sample. At the December 12, 2006 revocation hearing, Janis Joslin, the Crawford County victim's witness coordinator, testified that Phillips had made no payments in CR 05-148-2 and only one payment in CR 04-444-2. Payment ledgers supporting this testimony were introduced into evidence without objection. Joslin also testified that Phillips had failed to report to the sheriff's office to submit to DNA testing.
Phillips testified that he had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and his only income was the $660 per month that he received in disability payments; that he paid $250 per month in rent; that his electric bill was approximately $100 per month; and that he paid between $43 and $63 per month for medication. He also stated that, during the period at issue, he had paid off fines in Lonoke and Waldron and was currently paying fines in Alma at the rate of $100 per month. Phillips further testified that
At the close of the evidence, defense counsel argued that the court was required to consider Phillips's inability to pay. The trial court continued the case for approximately one month. When the case was reconvened, the court found that the State met its burden by showing that Phillips failed to pay his fines and costs and it held that it was not required to consider whether Phillips was unable to pay the fines and costs. Specifically, the court held that:
You were arguing that well he's got some circumstances that keep him from paying, you know, prohibiting him from paying and it's not willful then that may play into whether it's a contempt ... But it appears to me if you enter a plea agreement and you say you will pay, and you don't pay as agreed then you violated the terms of that agreement ...
The court ruled that Phillips violated his suspended sentence and sentenced Phillips to two years in prison with an additional four years suspended in each case to run concurrently. The judgment and commitment order was entered on January...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanna v. State, CA CR 09–121.
...burden of proof guided by the § 5–4–205(f)(2) & (3) factors. Jordan, 327 Ark. at 121–22, 939 S.W.2d at 257;Phillips v. State, 101 Ark.App. 190, 192–93, 272 S.W.3d 123, 125 (2008). When the probationer asserts an inability to pay, the State may not stand on the fact of nonpayment alone. [Ark......
-
Seamster v. State
...is sufficient to sustain an order revoking a suspended sentence. See Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-309 (Repl.2006); see also Phillips v. State, 101 Ark.App. 190, 272 S.W.3d 123 (2008). As a consequence, Seamster's motion to strike portions of the State's supplemental reply brief on this point is ...
-
Stiles v. State
... ... the shifting of the burden of production, the State shoulders ... the ultimate burden of proving that the defendant's ... failure to pay was inexcusable, Scroggins v. State, ... 2012 Ark.App. 87, 389 S.W.3d 40, and the State may not stand ... on the fact of nonpayment alone. Phillips v. State, ... 101 Ark.App. 190, 272 S.W.3d 123 (2008) ... In ... addition to the above considerations, there is a specific ... statute applicable to revocations that are based on failure ... to pay restitution. Arkansas Code Annotated section ... 5-4-205(f)(2) (Supp. 2021) ... ...
-
Seamster v. State, CR08-1331 (Ark. 5/7/2009)
...sufficient to sustain an order revoking a suspended sentence. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309 (Repl. 2006); see also Phillips v. State, 101 Ark. App. 190, 272 S.W.3d 123 (2008). As a consequence, Seamster's motion to strike portions of the State's supplemental reply brief on this point is ...