Geeslin v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 571

In 2010 James Geeslin pled guilty to multiple felonies; the court imposed a 20-year sentence but suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for the felon-in-possession count and signed a written "Conditions of Suspension."
The judgment was amended twice (2010 and 2015); the second amended form had a box marked "no" next to whether conditions were attached.
Geeslin was released in June 2015. In January 2016 he was arrested and charged state and later federally for possessing firearms as a felon.
The State filed a petition to revoke Geeslin’s SIS in February 2016, alleging new criminal charges (felon-in-possession) violated the suspension condition prohibiting firearms.
At the revocation hearing Geeslin admitted signing the written conditions but claimed he never received a copy and was unaware of amendments; testimony from a bailiff described a routine practice of providing paperwork to defendants at plea.
The trial court revoked Geeslin’s SIS and sentenced him to 20 years; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Geeslin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked authority to revoke SIS because Geeslin did not receive statutorily required written notice of conditions	Geeslin: signature alone shows only that the document was shown; he never was given a copy, and amended orders were not served so original conditions were superseded	State: Geeslin signed the written Conditions of Suspension dated the plea day; routine courthouse practice is to give defendants copies; no new conditions were added by amendments	Held: Affirmed. Signature on conditions plus testimony of standard practice and Geeslin’s admission of receiving other plea paperwork sufficed to show notice; no clear error.
Whether revocation proceedings should have been stayed pending resolution of related federal charges	Geeslin: acquittal in federal court would be powerful defense evidence; revocation should wait for federal disposition	State: statute allows revocation anytime during suspension period and conviction of the related crime is not required to revoke	Held: Affirmed. Trial court permissibly revoked SIS before federal disposition; no requirement to wait for criminal conviction.

Ross v. State, 268 Ark. 189, 594 S.W.2d 852 (1980) (trial courts cannot revoke based on conditions not expressly communicated in writing)
Zollicoffer v. State, 55 Ark. App. 166, 934 S.W.2d 939 (1996) (reversal where no evidence that appellant received written conditions)
Neely v. State, 7 Ark. App. 238, 647 S.W.2d 473 (1983) (reversal where suspension conditions were only orally communicated)
Patterson v. State, 257 S.W.3d 921 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (official’s testimony about regular office practices admissible to show notice)
Lambert v. State, 426 S.W.3d 478 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (State need not produce signed acknowledgment that defendant received written terms)
Morgan v. State, 37 S.W.3d 684 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001) (violation of condition prohibiting firearms supports revocation)
Hawkins v. State, 251 Ark. 955, 475 S.W.2d 887 (1972) (discussing ABA Standards but observing they were not adopted in Arkansas)
Ellerson v. State, 261 Ark. 525, 549 S.W.2d 495 (1977) (noting ABA Standards were not adopted in Arkansas)