Breeden v. State
2013 Ark. App. 522
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Breeden pled guilty in 2008 to possession of a Schedule II controlled substance and possession with intent to manufacture methamphetamine; sentenced to 72 months supervised probation with conditions including drug-court participation, reporting to a probation officer, and no alcohol/controlled substances without prescription.
- In March 2011 Breeden received Drug Court sanctions for missed drug screens, missed treatment, and positive drug tests; sentenced to one year in a community correction center and served additional short jail sanctions.
- A revocation petition filed July 26, 2012 (amended Sept. 7, 2012) alleged failures to report to his probation officer and multiple positive drug tests from January–August 2012; affidavit of the drug-court probation officer listed specified missed reporting dates and thirteen positive tests.
- At the revocation hearing the probation officer testified to the affidavit; Breeden testified he is a long-term addict, cited marital distress and new second-shift employment as reasons for missed reporting, and sought to explain (but not excuse) his noncompliance.
- The trial court revoked probation and sentenced Breeden to 72 months in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Breeden’s failures were excusable so revocation was improper | Breeden: addiction, emotional distress from wife’s affair, prior rehab and sanctions show mitigation and excuse for noncompliance | State: evidence shows failures to report and repeated drug use; noncompliance not excusable | Court: Breeden failed to show trial court’s findings were clearly against the preponderance of the evidence; revocation affirmed |
| Whether the appellate court may affirm based on an independent ground Breeden did not contest | Breeden: focused only on drug-use excusability | State: trial court found independent grounds (failure to report); appellate court may affirm on any sufficient ground | Court: Affirmed on independent ground (failure to report) without reaching excusability argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Pugh v. State, 351 Ark. 5, 89 S.W.3d 909 (2002) (appellate court may affirm on any independent ground the trial court relied on when appellant challenges only one ground)
- Farr v. State, 6 Ark. App. 14, 636 S.W.2d 884 (1982) (where multiple violations are alleged, revocation may be affirmed if evidence supports any single violation)