Bohannon v. State
2014 Ark. App. 434
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Brenda Bohannon pled guilty (2006) to a C-felony hot-check offense and was sentenced to 60 months’ probation, fines, fees, and $5,520.32 restitution (monthly $113). A ledger attached to the plea identified the check-by-check restitution amount.
- From 2006–2011 she made intermittent payments totaling $1,483.60; the State alleged she remained delinquent on fines and $4,351.72 of restitution. Probation officer recommended extending probation; State sought revocation in 2011 and supplemented in 2013 for additional alleged probation violations.
- At the revocation hearing officers testified Bohannon was notified of delinquencies and failed to produce receipts or proof of additional payments; probation officers also noted failures to complete community service and to maintain proof of employment.
- Bohannon testified she was confused about the correct restitution amount (pointing to an unfiled earlier document showing $415.72), claimed intermittent inability to work for health reasons, and produced no medical proof at the hearing; she introduced a sheriff’s office payment ledger showing the $1,483.60 in payments.
- The circuit court found Bohannon willfully failed to pay the agreed restitution shown in the signed judgment-and-disposition order, revoked probation, and sentenced her to eight years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Bohannon's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation was improper because court failed to analyze reasons for nonpayment | Court should have continued probation and considered employment, earnings, resources, willfulness, and other circumstances; Bohannon presented evidence of low wages, intermittent work, and health issues | Bohannon agreed to restitution in plea/judgment; she produced no convincing proof of inability to pay or of additional credited payments; burden shifted to her to excuse nonpayment | Court affirmed revocation: evidence supported finding of willful nonpayment and court did consider the statutory factors implicitly |
| Whether State proved nonpayment and willfulness | Bohannon argued payment records were unreliable and confusion over amounts excused nonpayment | State produced ledger and officer testimony showing delinquency and lack of proof of uncredited payments | Court held State established nonpayment; Bohannon failed to provide a reasonable excuse; burden shift applied and State met ultimate burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. State, 272 S.W.3d 123 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008) (medical inability to work can support a finding that failure to pay restitution was nonwillful)
- Hanna v. State, 372 S.W.3d 375 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (disability income and persuasive medical proof weighed against revocation for nonpayment)
- Scroggins v. State, 389 S.W.3d 40 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (State retains ultimate burden to prove defendant’s failure to pay was inexcusable)