Dawson v. State
2016 Ark. App. 558
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Tamara Dawson pled guilty in 2010 to possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine and was sentenced to 36 months’ probation (fine suspended).
- Multiple petitions to revoke probation were filed (2012, 2013, amended petitions through 2014) alleging missed drug screens, missed counseling/group meetings, failure to report, traffic-related convictions, and arrests for warrants/failure to appear.
- Dawson pleaded guilty to earlier revocation petitions and received renewed probationary sentences in 2012 and 2013–2014.
- A revocation hearing was held June 4, 2015 on later allegations; at close of evidence Dawson’s counsel moved to dismiss on the ground the State failed to prove she was on probation (i.e., offered no judgment establishing probation).
- The circuit court deferred ruling, requested briefs, denied the motion on July 7, 2015 (relying on Scroggins), and again sentenced Dawson to 36 months’ probation; Dawson timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by denying Dawson’s motion to dismiss a revocation petition for lack of proof that she was on probation | State: probation terms and underlying conviction were part of the court record; formal introduction into evidence not required (Scroggins) | Dawson: State failed to introduce a judgment proving she was on probation; court improperly took judicial notice and Rules of Evidence don’t apply to revocation proceedings | Court did not reach the merits: Dawson changed her argument on appeal from her trial argument; a party is bound by the trial-level argument. Denial of dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scroggins v. State, 389 S.W.3d 40 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (terms of probation in the record may suffice even if not formally introduced into evidence)
- Jones v. State, 388 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (State bears burden to prove probation violations by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Maxwell v. State, 336 S.W.3d 881 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (probation-revocation standards and burden of proof)
- Rodgers v. State, 199 S.W.3d 625 (Ark. 2004) (a party cannot change the grounds for an objection or motion on appeal)