Ross v. State, No. CR
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
| Writing for the Court | MAYS |
| Citation | 268 Ark. 189,594 S.W.2d 852 |
| Parties | Randy ROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 79-212. |
| Docket Number | No. CR |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1980 |
Page 852
v.
STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
[268 Ark. 190] James C. Cole, Malvern, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Catherine Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
MAYS, Justice.
In 1976, appellant, Randy Ross, a fifteen year old Malvern, Arkansas resident, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary with four years suspended. Although appellant's suspended sentence was not expressly conditional, the trial court revoked the appellant's suspension approximately two years after he had been released from the state penitentiary for violating the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence when he committed the separate crimes of battery and aggravated assault. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court lacked authority to revoke his suspended sentence on the basis of a violation of an implied condition. We agree.
Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1203 (Repl.1977), authorizes a court to establish certain reasonable conditions which may be imposed in connection with a suspended sentence and provides in part as follows:
(1) . . . The court shall provide as an express condition of every suspension or probation that defendant not commit an offense punishable by imprisonment during the period of suspension or probation.
(4) If the court suspends the imposition of sentence on a defendant or places him on probation, the defendant shall be given a written statement explicitly setting forth the conditions under which he is being released.
In spite of the failure of the trial court to expressly condition appellant's suspended sentence as required by statute, the state contends that good behavior is an implied condition of every suspension and need not be expressed in writing or otherwise since a person should be presumed to know that his [268 Ark. 191] suspended sentence is contingent upon his refraining from criminal conduct. The state primarily relies on Gerard v. State, 235 Ark. 1015, 363 S.W.2d 916 (1963), in which we held that the failure to provide certain written conditions in connection with a suspended sentence did not deprive the trial court of the power to revoke suspended sentences. In Gerard, supra, however, we were not confronted with the lack of any expressed conditions since the trial judge had orally admonished the
Page 853
defendant of...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Costes v. State, No. CA CR 08-55.
...Harris, 98 Ark.App. at 270, 254 S.W.3d at 793-94 (citations omitted, emphasis in original). Harris is in line with Ross v. State, 268 Ark. 189, 594 S.W.2d 852 (1980), a case I relied upon in my Whitener dissent. There, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation after finding that he ......
-
Geeslin v. State, No. CR–16–980
...was unaware of the conditions but only that he did not get a copy of them.533 S.W.3d 137Geeslin relies on the holdings in Ross v. State, 268 Ark. 189, 594 S.W.2d 852 (1980) ("[C]ourts have no power to imply and subsequently revoke conditions which were not expressly communicated in writing ......
-
State v. Kunkel, Cr. N
...grounds for probation revocation. See State v. Acosta, 25 Ariz.App. 44, 45, 540 P.2d 1263, 1264 (1975). While the case of Ross v. State, 268 Ark. 189, 594 S.W.2d 852 (1980), is contrary to this position, we disagree with its rationale and adopt the aforementioned views expressed in such cas......
-
Smith v. State, No. CR-18-897
...subsequently revoke a defendant's probation on conditions that were not expressly communicated in writing to a defendant. Ross v. State, 268 Ark. 189, 191, 594 S.W.2d 852, 853 (1980); O'Neal v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 241; Harris v. State, 98 Ark. App. 264, 254 S.W.3d 789 (2007). In order to ......
-
Costes v. State, No. CA CR 08-55.
...Harris, 98 Ark.App. at 270, 254 S.W.3d at 793-94 (citations omitted, emphasis in original). Harris is in line with Ross v. State, 268 Ark. 189, 594 S.W.2d 852 (1980), a case I relied upon in my Whitener dissent. There, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation after finding that he ......
-
Geeslin v. State, No. CR–16–980
...was unaware of the conditions but only that he did not get a copy of them.533 S.W.3d 137Geeslin relies on the holdings in Ross v. State, 268 Ark. 189, 594 S.W.2d 852 (1980) ("[C]ourts have no power to imply and subsequently revoke conditions which were not expressly communicated in writing ......
-
State v. Kunkel, Cr. N
...grounds for probation revocation. See State v. Acosta, 25 Ariz.App. 44, 45, 540 P.2d 1263, 1264 (1975). While the case of Ross v. State, 268 Ark. 189, 594 S.W.2d 852 (1980), is contrary to this position, we disagree with its rationale and adopt the aforementioned views expressed in such cas......
-
Whitener v. State, No. CA CR 06-106.
...into evidence the probationary condition that appellant not violate the law." This statement is contrary to the result in Ross v. State, 268 Ark. 189, 594 S.W.2d 852 (1980). There, the trial court revoked the appellant's suspended sentence after the appellant committed battery and aggravate......