David Lee Daniels, Jr. v. State of Arkansas
588 S.W.3d 116
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background:
- In January 2018, David Lee Daniels Jr. pled guilty to aggravated assault (family/household member) and received a six-year suspended imposition of sentence (SIS).
- In December 2018 the State petitioned to revoke Daniels’s SIS, alleging (1) new offense—possession of oxycodone—and (2) failure to pay fines, costs, and fees.
- Detective Stephen Becker testified he found Daniels asleep at Carla Freeman’s home; after waking, Daniels sat on the bed with a wadded piece of paper in his hand that he dropped twice; the officer recovered pills from that paper later identified as oxycodone; Daniels’s other pill bottles did not contain oxycodone.
- Daniels testified pills and other items were already on the bed, denied holding or handing anything to the officer, and said the pills the officer found were not his (though he had prescriptions for many medications, including oxycodone).
- The circuit court found both alleged violations proven, revoked the SIS, and imposed four years’ imprisonment plus two years’ SIS; Daniels appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation based on the possession ground, deferring to the circuit court’s credibility findings and rejecting the contention that the State’s failure to call Freeman created an adverse inference.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved Daniels violated SIS by possessing oxycodone | Officer’s testimony: Daniels held/dropped a wadded paper containing pills later lab-identified as oxycodone; none of Daniels’s pill bottles contained oxycodone | Pills were on the bed before Daniels slept; Daniels never held or handed pills to the officer; pills found were not his despite an oxycodone prescription | Affirmed: officer testimony sufficient by a preponderance; court deferred to credibility findings |
| Whether Daniels violated SIS by failing to pay fines, costs, and fees | State alleged nonpayment | Daniels disputed or challenged the allegation on appeal | Not necessary to resolve on appeal—revocation affirmed based on possession ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Von Holt v. State, 524 S.W.3d 19 (Ark. App. 2017) (State must prove violation of suspended sentence by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Barton v. Brockinton, 524 S.W.3d 430 (Ark. App. 2017) (no adverse inference on appeal when a party-controlled witness is not called at trial)
- Siddiq v. State, 502 S.W.3d 537 (Ark. App. 2016) (appellate courts defer to circuit court’s credibility and weight determinations)