Zollicoffer v. State, CA
| Decision Date | 04 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 934 S.W.2d 939,55 Ark.App. 166 |
| Parties | Johnny L. ZOLLICOFFER, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. CR 96-218. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
William M. Pearson, Clarksville, for Appellant.
Kent G. Holt, Asst. Atty. General, Little Rock, for Appellee.
On July 2, 1993, the appellant, Johnny L. Zollicoffer, pleaded guilty to the offense of criminal attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud. He was sentenced to six years in the Arkansas Department of Correction, with the last three years of the term suspended. On April 3, 1995, the prosecuting attorney filed a petition to revoke the suspended portion of appellant's sentence, alleging that he had violated its conditions by committing another criminal offense. After a hearing, the trial court revoked appellant's suspension, ordered that he serve ninety days in the Arkansas Department of Community Punishment, and suspended imposition of an additional term. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his suspension because he never received any written conditions and erred in admitting into evidence medical records and statements that appellant made to physicians and pharmacists. Because we find merit in appellant's first argument, we reverse the order of revocation and dismiss the case. Consequently, we need not address appellant's second point.
At the hearing on the State's petition, appellant moved to dismiss the revocation proceeding, arguing that there was no proof that appellant was ever given any written conditions of his suspended sentence. Therefore, he argued, the trial court was without authority to revoke his suspension. The trial court acknowledged that there was no evidence and nothing in the file to indicate that appellant received any written conditions. The State did not respond to the motion, seek to re-open its case, or proffer any evidence to show that appellant was so informed in writing. Nevertheless, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
We agree with appellant that the trial court erred. Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-4-303 (Repl.1993) provides that, 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 Ross v. State, 268 Ark. 189, 594 S.W.2d 852 (1980), the supreme court was faced with a similar set of facts. There, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. State
...defendants a written list of conditions of probation before one can be revoked for violation of a condition, Zollicoffer v. State, 55 Ark.App. 166, 934 S.W.2d 939 (1996), and because the State failed to put forth that proof at the revocation proceeding, there lacks sufficient evidence to su......
-
Geeslin v. State, CR–16–980
...which were not expressly communicated in writing to a defendant as a condition of his suspended sentence."); Zollicoffer v. State, 55 Ark. App. 166, 934 S.W.2d 939 (1996) (reversing and remanding a revocation where the trial court had acknowledged that "there was no evidence and nothing in ......
-
Richardson v. State
...shall be given a written statement explicitly setting forth the conditions under which he is being released." In Zollicoffer v. State, 55 Ark.App. 166, 934 S.W.2d 939 (1996), we cited the supreme court's statement in Ross v. State, 268 Ark. 189, 594 S.W.2d 852 (1980), that all conditions fo......
-
Roberson v. State
...It is true that a defendant may not be held to any implied or imputed terms of suspension or probation. See Zollicoffer v. State, 55 Ark. App. 166, 934 S.W.2d 939 (1996). However, is clear that trial courts may find that a defendant violated the terms of his probation by constructive posses......