Claude Michael Morgan v. State of Arkansas
2024 Ark. App. 416
Ark. Ct. App.2024Background
- Claude Michael Morgan was given suspended sentences after pleading guilty to failure to comply with sex-offender registration requirements and abuse of a corpse.
- Morgan was subsequently alleged to have committed five new offenses while on a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS), prompting the State to file a revocation petition.
- The Phillips County Circuit Court conducted a revocation hearing, at which it found by a preponderance of the evidence that Morgan had committed three of the five alleged offenses: theft of property, altering or changing engine or other numbers, and fleeing (one a felony, two misdemeanors).
- The court credited law enforcement testimony, particularly identifying Morgan as fleeing in a high-speed chase.
- The court revoked Morgan’s SIS and sentenced him to ten years in the Arkansas Division of Correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for revocation | Morgan argued the evidence was insufficient to show commission of any new offenses. | The State asserted the evidence proved at least three violations under the preponderance standard. | Court held evidence was sufficient to prove violation; revocation affirmed. |
| Credibility of witness identification | Morgan claimed Deputy Bramlett’s identification of him as the driver was not credible. | State relied on circuit court’s finding that Bramlett was credible. | Court deferred to trial court’s credibility assessment. |
| Sufficiency as to each alleged offense | Morgan challenged all five alleged offenses. | State noted only one violation need be proven for revocation. | Court found proof on three; need to address only one, so others need not be discussed. |
| Weight of testimonial evidence | Morgan questioned the weight given to state witnesses. | State referenced court's superior position to judge credibility. | Court upheld trial court’s role on weight/credibility of testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Joyce v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 186 (sets revocation evidence sufficiency standard)
- Tilley v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 19 (standard for appellate review of revocations)
- Trammell v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 250 (trial court's role in assessing credibility in revocations)
- Bennett v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 351 (sufficiency of single witness to sustain conviction)
- Garner v. State, 355 Ark. 82 (one eyewitness can sustain conviction)
- Truitt v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 276 (only one proven violation needed for revocation)