Thomas v. State Of Ark.
| Decision Date | 29 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | NO. CR-04-1074,No. CACR09-1389,NO. CR-06-377,CACR09-1389,CR-04-1074,CR-06-377 |
| Citation | 2010 Ark. App. 650 |
| Parties | CRAIG DEON THOMAS APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT, HONORABLE J. MICHAEL FITZHUGH, JUDGE
Appellant Craig Thomas appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences for possession of drug paraphernalia (CR-04-1074) and breaking or entering (CR-06-377). Thomas was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for the possession charge and received an additional three years' suspended sentence for the breaking or entering charge. He argues that the trial court erred by revoking his suspended sentence because 1) the State failed to introduce any evidence of his prior conditions and 2) the evidence was insufficient to support his revocation. We affirm.
Thomas's suspended sentences on these underlying charges were also revoked in July 2007. The revocation was upheld by this court on appeal.1 He was paroled on October 29, 2008. At the time of his parole, Thomas had a five-year suspended sentence on CR-04-1074 and a three-year suspended sentence on CR-06-377. The State filed an amended petition to revoke on July 2, 2009, alleging that Thomas had committed the offense of possession of drug paraphernalia, associating with others engaged in those activities and with known felons, and by committing the offense of breaking or entering.
Thomas's revocation hearing took place on September 16, 2009. Officer Brent Rogers of the Fort Smith Police Department testified that he came in contact with Thomas on June 6, 2009, at the 1500 block of Bell Avenue in Fort Smith. According to Officer Rogers, he and Officer Kelly Mask were on routine patrol when he observed Thomas putting on his seat belt as he was making a right hand turn.2 Officer Rogers stated that he also noticed that Thomas's windshield had a bunch of cracks in it, and there were issues with Thomas's tail light. Officer Rogers initiated a traffic stop. At that point, Officer Rogers stated that the doors of the vehicle came open quickly and that both occupants attempted to get out of the vehicle. Officer Rogers said that he approached the driver's side of the vehicle and that O fficer Mask approached the passenger's side. The officers made Thomas and his passenger, Ryland Thompson, sit back down in the vehicle. Officer Rogers asked Thomas for his license, insurance, and registration. Thomas handed Officer Rogers his identification, and when Thomas reached into his dashboard to retrieve his insurance card, Officer Mask saw a syringe in the glove compartment. Thomas's and Thompson's identifications were run andthey both came back as parolees. Officer Rogers contacted Craig Robie, a parole officer, who told Rogers to place both Thomas and Thompson under arrest for parole violations. A search was performed incident to the arrest, which revealed a glass pipe and a cigarette box containing a large amount of crystalline substance under the passenger seat of the vehicle. Although both of the items were under the seat, they were not together. The glass pipe was wrapped in a bandana, and the crystalline substance was in a cigarette box.
On cross, Officer Rogers stated that he questioned Thomas and Thompson about the items after Officer Mask read them their rights. According to Rogers, Thompson stated that the crystalline substance belonged to him; however, neither Thomas nor Thompson claimed ownership of the glass pipe.
On re-direct, Officer Rogers stated that the vehicle belonged to Thomas.
Officer Mask testified that he was present at the time of the stop, and that he saw the syringe in the glove compartment of Thomas's car. However, he stated that he did not participate in the search of the car or the questioning of Thomas and Thompson.
Thomas told Officer Casper that he was trying to get in touch with his cousin, Jerome. Officer Casper stated that he knew the people who resided there and had personal knowledge that no one by the name of Jerome lived there. At that point, Thomas was placed under arrest for breaking or entering. Thomas told Officer Casper that he was only trying to get his keys out of the vehicle. Officer Casper placed Thomas in the back of his patrol car and then made contact with Rafael Roberto, the resident of the house. Roberto told Officer Casper that he did not know Thomas.
At the end of the hearing, the court found that Thomas had violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence. Thomas was sentenced to five years' imprisonment with an additional three years' suspended. This appeal followed.
Thomas contends that since the State did not introduce the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence, the court had "no basis from which to conclude that [he] had violated a term of suspension." The State correctly notes that Thomas has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scroggins v. State
...Whitener v. State, 96 Ark.App. 354, 241 S.W.3d 779 (2006); Costes v. State, 103 Ark.App. 171, 287 S.W.3d 639 (2008); Thomas v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 650, 2010 WL 3783705. In Nelson, our court concluded that Nelson's argument that the State failed to prove that he had been given a copy of th......
-
Miller v. State, CACR10-722
...us. We originally ordered rebriefing due to deficiencies in Miller's addendum. See Miller v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 90. 4.See Thomas v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 650. hearing.4 Because Miller failed to raise his arguments at the trial level, we do not address them.5 Affirmed. ROBBINS and MARTIN,......