Carl Gene Morgan v. State of Arkansas
2020 Ark. App. 212
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- Morgan pleaded guilty to class D felony theft on June 19, 2017, and was sentenced to 48 months' probation.
- His probation was previously revoked on November 30, 2017 (after a guilty plea) and he received 60 months' probation.
- On April 16, 2019, the State petitioned to revoke probation alleging: public intoxication, two positive methamphetamine tests, and failure to pay fines/fees/costs.
- At the June 27, 2019 bench revocation hearing, testimony showed one payment (Sept. 2018), positive meth tests (Oct. 1, 2018 and Feb. 19, 2019), and an April 4, 2019 public-intoxication arrest.
- The circuit court found the State proved all allegations and revoked probation, sentencing Morgan to 48 months' imprisonment.
- On appeal Morgan argued (1) the State failed to introduce the probation terms and (2) the State did not prove a willful failure to pay; he did not challenge the court's findings on drug use or the public-intoxication arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation should be reversed because the State did not introduce the written terms and conditions of probation | Morgan: State's failure to introduce the probation terms means revocation unsupported | State: Issue was not preserved at trial; no objection was raised | Court: Not preserved; appellant forfeited the procedural objection |
| Whether revocation was unsupported because the State did not prove a willful failure to pay fines/fees | Morgan: Testimony of missed payments insufficient to show willfulness | State: Proof of nonpayment plus probation supervision evidence supports revocation | Court: Morgan only challenged failure-to-pay; but court found independent violations (drug use and public intoxication); because one proven violation suffices, affirmance required (court did not need to decide willfulness) |
Key Cases Cited
- Springs v. State, 525 S.W.3d 490 (Ark. App. 2017) (standard for revocation: preponderance of evidence)
- Vangilder v. State, 555 S.W.3d 413 (Ark. App. 2018) (lesser burden in revocation than in criminal conviction)
- McClain v. State, 489 S.W.3d 179 (Ark. App. 2016) (appellate review asks whether findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence)
- Costes v. State, 287 S.W.3d 643 (Ark. App. 2008) (procedural objections must be preserved below)
- Myers v. State, 451 S.W.3d 588 (Ark. App. 2014) (failure to introduce terms and conditions is a procedural objection that must be raised at the revocation hearing)