Scroggins v. State, CR-19-50

• Decision Date: 28 August 2019
• Docket Number: No. CR-19-50,CR-19-50
• Citation: 582 S.W.3d 853,2019 Ark. App. 346
• Parties: David Lee SCROGGINS, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

2019 Ark. App. 346

582 S.W.3d 853

David Lee SCROGGINS, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-19-50

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION IV.

Opinion Delivered: August 28, 2019

Dusti Standridge, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

Appellant David Scroggins appeals an order from the Faulkner County Circuit Court revoking his probation and sentencing him to six years in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Scroggins raises two arguments for reversal: (1) the State failed to prove that he inexcusably violated the terms and conditions of his probation, and (2) the six-year sentence imposed by the circuit court was disproportionate to the nature of his violation. We find no error and affirm.

Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2015), a circuit court may revoke a defendant's suspended sentence at any time prior to the expiration of the period of suspended sentence if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a term or condition. Keyes v. State , 2019 Ark. App. 202, 575 S.W.3d 166. The burden is on the State 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. On appeal, the circuit court's findings will be upheld unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. Because a determination of the preponderance of the evidence turns heavily on questions of credibility and weight to be given to the testimony, the appellate courts defer to the circuit court's superior position in this regard. Id. Only one violation of the conditions of probation must be proved to support a revocation. Id. Evidence that is insufficient for a criminal conviction may be sufficient for a revocation proceeding because the burdens of proof are different. Keyes, supra . Having set out our standard of review, we now consider the evidence before the circuit court at Scroggins's revocation hearing.

Scroggins pled guilty in June 2018 to one count of third-degree domestic battery, a Class D felony, and received sixty months' probation. Approximately two months later, in August 2018, the State filed a petition to revoke Scroggins's probation, alleging that he had violated numerous conditions. The circuit court held a hearing on the State's petition and heard testimony from Scroggins's probation officer, Audriana Passafiume. According to Passafiume, Scroggins had not complied with the conditions of his probation. When Scroggins was sentenced to probation on June 11, 2018, he was advised to report on July 16. He failed to report. Passafiume, along with another officer, began to search for Scroggins. They located him at the home of another probationer. Scroggins was not cooperative with Passafiume; he became combative and verbally aggressive and made threats to Passafiume and the other officer, saying things like "I'll kill you," "Get off me ‘B,’ " and "Get off me big black motherfucker." Although Passafiume felt that she could have charged Scroggins with felony terroristic threatening, she did not. Instead, she administratively imposed a three-day detention due to Scroggins's failure to report.

After his release from detention, Scroggins reported to Passafiume as directed. At this meeting, Scroggins, who had previously admitted using marijuana and methamphetamine, apologized for his conduct and discussed with Passafiume his drug use and how this affected his behavior. In his postdetention meeting with Passafiume, Scroggins told Passafiume that he struggled with addiction, which was preventing him from returning to a previous job. On the basis of that statement, Passafiume scheduled Scroggins for a substance-abuse assessment on August 10 and a return appointment with her on August 15. Scroggins failed to appear on either date.

Once again, Passafiume began to search for Scroggins. She attempted to conduct a home visit on August 17, but he was not there, so she left a note for Scroggins to report on August 20. She subsequently received information that Scroggins no longer lived at that address. She eventually found Scroggins living with another probationer in violation of his conditions of probation. In addition, Passafiume reported that Scroggins never made any of his required payments, which included $70 in supervision fees and fines of $1,695. In short, she said, "He's done nothing that he was supposed to do." Passafiume was the only witness to present any evidence to the court. Scroggins did not testify or offer any evidence at the revocation hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court revoked Scroggins's probation and, as noted above, sentenced him to six years in the ADC.

In his first argument on appeal, Scroggins contends that the State failed to prove that he inexcusably violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Among those conditions were the requirements that he not violate any local, state, or federal...