Baney v. State, 510 S.W.3d 799

Jessie Earl Baney was convicted in 2013 of multiple offenses and placed on staggered probation terms totaling up to ten years for some counts.
The State petitioned to revoke Baney’s probation in 2015, alleging new felony charges, possession of a firearm, lack of employment, failure to secure a stable residence, and nonpayment of fines/costs.
At the revocation hearing Baney’s probation officer testified Baney was living in a camper on his parents’ property (while Baney is himself a level-four sex offender), had been charged with aggravated robbery in another county, had unpaid fines/restitution, and produced no proof of employment.
Baney did not testify; a family member said the living arrangement had been approved by the probation officer and that doors were locked at night.
The trial court found Baney violated probation for (1) refusing to move from his residence and (2) incurring a new criminal charge, and revoked probation, sentencing him to thirty years total.
The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the trial court’s factual findings were against the preponderance of the evidence because the written probation conditions did not require Baney to move and a mere charge does not prove commission of a new offense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Baney’s living arrangement violated probation	State: Baney refused to move and lived with/near others such that it violated a condition to seek a stable residence	Baney: Written conditions only required notice/approval of address; he remained at an approved address	Court: Reversed — no written condition required him to relocate; finding against preponderance of evidence
Whether a new out-of-county charge supported revocation	State: Baney was charged with aggravated robbery, supporting revocation	Baney: A charge alone does not prove he committed a crime	Court: Reversed — mere charge without proof insufficient to show violation
Whether unpaid fines/restitution justified revocation	State: Alleged failure to pay fines/restitution	Baney: Written probation conditions did not include payment of fines/restitution as a probation term (despite sentencing order)	Court: Not relied on by trial court; record note that written conditions omitted fines/restitution
Whether revocation standard (preponderance) was met	State: Preponderance standard satisfied by officer testimony and circumstances	Baney: Evidence presented did not meet preponderance for the specific conditions alleged	Court: Preponderance not met as to the findings used for revocation

Stultz v. State, 212 S.W.3d 42 (Ark. App. 2005) (appellate review defers to trial court credibility determinations but will reverse findings clearly against the preponderance of the evidence)