Stiles v. State
| Decision Date | 21 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | CR-22-96 |
| Parties | SCOTT STILES APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NOS. 17CR-19-314 & 17CR-20-347] HONORABLE MICHAEL MEDLOCK, JUDGE
Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. by: Peyton Hildebrand, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
This is a revocation case. On July 6, 2020, appellant Scott Stiles pleaded guilty to Class C felony nonsupport and Class C felony failure to appear. For each of these offenses, Stiles was placed on a ten-year suspended imposition of sentence. Stiles was also ordered to pay court costs of $190, a fine of $500, and restitution of $17,234.01. The conditions of his suspensions required Stiles to pay these amounts at a rate of $65 a month beginning September 7, 2020, and also required him to pay $1000 toward his arrears within ninety days of his plea.
On October 20, 2020, the State filed a petition to revoke Stiles's suspended sentences, alleging that he had violated the conditions by failing to make any payments toward his court costs, fine, and restitution.[1] After a hearing held on November 5, 2021, the trial court found that Stiles violated the conditions of his suspensions by failing to pay anything toward his financial obligation. On November 9, 2021, the trial court entered an order revoking Stiles's suspended sentences and sentencing him to five years in prison followed by a five-year suspended imposition of sentence for nonsupport and a ten-year suspended imposition of sentence for failure to appear.
Stiles now appeals from the revocations and resulting sentences. On appeal, Stiles challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocations, arguing that the State failed to prove that he inexcusably failed to pay his court costs fine, and restitution. Stiles also argues that the trial court used an erroneous standard in concluding that he violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. We affirm.
Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2021), the burden on the State in a revocation proceeding is to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his suspension or probation. The State needs to prove only one violation to sustain the revocation. Wilcox v. State, 2021 Ark.App. 244, 624 S.W.3d 353. We will not reverse a decision revoking a suspension or probation unless the trial court's findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, and we defer to the credibility determinations made by the trial court. Geeslin v. State, 2017 Ark.App. 571, 533 S.W.3d 132.
Lisa Wilkinson, the Crawford County fine and restitution coordinator, testified at the revocation hearing. Ms. Wilkinson testified that Stiles had made no payments toward his court-ordered court costs, fine, and restitution.
Stiles testified on his own behalf. Stiles testified that at the time he was arrested on the underlying charges, he was living at a house owned by his parents in Russellville. Stiles stated that when he was released from jail and placed on the suspended sentences on July 6, 2020, he had no way to get back to Russellville from Crawford County. Stiles lived at his brother's house in Fort Smith for the next month. During that time, Stiles was unemployed, and he acknowledged he did not look for a job. Stiles did not pay his brother anything to live there, and his brother was feeding him.
When Stiles managed to get back to Russellville a month later, he found that the house where he was living had been ransacked. Stiles stayed at the house in Russellville for the next three weeks but had to vacate after that because his father sold the property. Stiles stated that after vacating the house in Russellville, he "bounced from couch to couch for a while" and then lived in a tent for several months after that. Stiles stated that he had no transportation. Stiles stated that while in Russellville, he attempted to find employment but was unsuccessful until he got a job at AMCORP in December 2020. Stiles worked at AMCORP for four months before being arrested in April 2021 on unrelated charges. Stiles stated that he was incarcerated on the unrelated charges until being released about a month and a half before the revocation hearing.
On cross-examination, Stiles admitted that he had never made a payment toward his financial obligation. When asked whether he "could have made some payment," Stiles answered, "Yes, sir."
Based on this evidence, the trial court found from the bench that Stiles violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. The parties then gave their respective arguments on sentencing, and the trial court stated that it would sentence Stiles to five years in prison followed by a five-year suspended imposition of sentence. The trial court then stated,
Stiles's first argument on appeal is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocations of his suspended sentences. Stiles admits that he made no payments toward his court costs, fine, and restitution. Stiles argues, however, that the State failed in its burden to prove that his failure to pay was inexcusable.
Our caselaw provides that when the alleged violation is failure to make payments as ordered, it is the State's burden to prove that the failure to pay was inexcusable. Alexander v. State, 2018 Ark.App. 466, 561 S.W.3d 744. Once the State has introduced evidence of nonpayment, the burden of going forward shifts to the defendant to offer some reasonable excuse for failing to pay. Id. It is the defendant's obligation to justify his failure to pay, and this shifting of the burden of production provides an opportunity to explain the reason for nonpayment. Sanders v. State, 2012 Ark.App. 697. This shifting burden draws out the reason for nonpayment, and the defendant may not "sit back and rely totally upon the trial court to make inquiry into his excuse for nonpayment." Alexander, 2018 Ark.App. 466, at 4, 561 S.W.3d at 746. Nor must the State negate every possible excuse for nonpayment-an impossible task-in its case-in-chief. Reese v. State, 26 Ark.App. 42, 759 S.W.2d 576 (1988). Despite 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) provides that when restitution is ordered as a condition of a suspended imposition of sentence the trial court may revoke "if the defendant fails to comply with the order and if the defendant has not made a good faith effort to comply with the order." In determining whether to revoke for a failure to pay restitution, the trial court shall consider the defendant's employment status, earning ability, financial resources, the willfulness of the failure to pay, and any other special circumstances that may have a bearing on the defendant's ability to pay. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-205(f)(3)(A)-(E). If the defendant asserts an inability to pay, then the State must carry its ultimate burden of demonstrating no good-faith effort guided by the factors in subsection (f)(3). Jordan v. State, 327 Ark. 117, 939 S.W.2d 255 (1997). Although the trial court is...
To continue reading
Request your trial