Alsbrook v. State
2016 Ark. App. 8
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Natalie Alsbrook pled guilty to possession of a Schedule I controlled substance (Class D felony) on April 29, 2013, and received five years’ probation.
- The State filed a revocation petition alleging multiple probation violations: missed reporting and counseling appointments, unpaid fees, failure to notify probation of address/employment, and multiple positive drug tests (various dates in 2013–2014).
- On September 6, 2014, police discovered six hypodermic needles in a vehicle Alsbrook was driving; she denied ownership and gave inconsistent statements about their use.
- Probation officer testified Alsbrook missed several early appointments (Jan–Feb 2014), had no contact after October 14, 2014, and recorded positive drug tests (including opiates, benzodiazepines, marijuana) on several dates.
- At the revocation hearing, Alsbrook admitted a drug problem, denied intravenous use and ownership of the needles, claimed some counseling/drug-court efforts without proof, and acknowledged not having her driver’s license during the stop.
- The circuit court found Alsbrook inexcusably failed to report and test negative as required, revoked probation, and sentenced her to 18 months’ incarceration followed by 36 months’ suspended imposition of sentence. Alsbrook appealed only the "inexcusable" finding.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alsbrook’s failure to report to her probation officer was "inexcusable" | Alsbrook contends the State failed to prove scheduled appointments existed and that some missed reporting after Oct. 14, 2014, was due to incarceration | Probation officer’s testimony established multiple missed appointments and lack of contact after Oct. 14; no evidence showed misses were excusable | Court held the evidence supported revocation: failure to report was inexcusable under the preponderance standard |
| Whether positive drug tests were "inexcusable" | Alsbrook claimed a "drug problem" and asserted prescriptions/efforts at counseling (argued on appeal) | State relied on the positive tests and lack of credible evidence that addiction excused violations | Court did not need to resolve this question because revocation was affirmed on failure-to-report; noted bare assertions of addiction do not excuse failed tests |
Key Cases Cited
- Ta v. State, 459 S.W.3d 325 (Ark. App. 2015) (revocation standard and statute on suspension revocation)
- Sherril v. State, 439 S.W.3d 76 (Ark. App. 2014) (evidence insufficient for conviction may suffice for revocation)
- Reyes v. State, 454 S.W.3d 279 (Ark. App. 2015) (deference to trial court on credibility)
- Peals v. State, 453 S.W.3d 151 (Ark. App. 2015) (weight given to witness testimony)
- Robinson v. State, 446 S.W.3d 190 (Ark. App. 2014) (State need only prove one probation violation to support revocation)
- Anglin v. State, 249 S.W.3d 836 (Ark. App. 2007) (definition and meaning of "inexcusable")
- Barbee v. State, 56 S.W.3d 370 (Ark. 2001) (discussing sufficiency preservation and related standards)
- McWilliams v. State, 336 S.W.3d 884 (Ark. App. 2009) (preservation of sufficiency-of-evidence objection on revocation)