Brandon Michael Clark v. State of Arkansas
584 S.W.3d 680
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Brandon Michael Clark pled guilty in 2017 to aggravated assault on a family member and first-degree terroristic threatening (mother was the victim) and received concurrent four-year probationary sentences and a no-violence/no-contact restriction.
- In May 2018 the State alleged probation violations after Clark pleaded guilty in a second case (2017) to second-degree domestic battery and aggravated assault and received additional probation; the court again ordered no contact with his mother.
- The State filed a petition to revoke probation in July 2018, alleging multiple violations: failure to report to his probation officer after release, leaving the state without permission, failing to pay fines/fees, failing to report residence changes, committing third-degree domestic battery (later dismissed), violating the no-contact order, and consuming alcohol.
- At the September 2018 revocation hearing Clark admitted failing to report, changing residence without notice, traveling out of state, violating the no-contact order, and consuming alcohol; surveillance and police testimony corroborated presence at his mother’s home while intoxicated.
- The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Clark violated all alleged conditions except failing to pay fines (and the State’s third-degree-battery count was dismissed) and revoked probation, imposing prison terms totaling 20 years and additional suspended-imposition terms.
- Clark appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for revocation (procedural defect and excusable violations) and that the aggregate, consecutive sentences were unduly harsh and an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Clark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke probation | State: Introduced probation officer testimony, police testimony, and surveillance showing violations; burden is preponderance. | Clark: Challenges lack of written conditions in the record and contends some violations (no-contact, crossing state line) were excusable. | Court: Affirmed revocation; Clark failed to preserve procedural objection and admitted multiple violations; independent bases supported revocation. |
| Whether violation of no-contact order was excusable | State: Violation was willful despite repeated warnings and explicit admonitions from the court. | Clark: Said contact was to assist his mother and therefore excusable. | Court: Found willful violation not clearly against preponderance of evidence. |
| Legality of sentences (within statutory range) | State: Sentences were lawful and within statutory maximums for Class C and D felonies. | Clark: Argues aggregate consecutive maximums are unduly harsh. | Court: Sentences lawful; within statutory limits; appellate court will not reduce for harshness alone. |
| Abuse of discretion in ordering consecutive sentences | State: Trial court has discretion under statute to impose concurrent or consecutive terms and used that discretion appropriately given repeated violations. | Clark: Contends trial court abused discretion by running multiple maximums consecutively. | Court: No abuse; court had discretion and emphasized defendant’s repeated violations and warnings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 355 Ark. 630, 144 S.W.3d 254 (standard for proving probation violation by preponderance)
- Lenard v. State, 2014 Ark. 478 (sentencing limited to statutory prescriptions)
- Richie v. State, 2009 Ark. 602 (court has authority to impose lawful maximum sentence)
- Brown v. State, 2010 Ark. 420 (appellate courts will not reduce within-limit sentences for harshness alone)
- Williams v. State, 320 Ark. 498, 898 S.W.2d 38 (limits on appellate reduction of legislatively prescribed sentences)
- Throneberry v. State, 2009 Ark. 507 (trial court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences)