Givan v. State
2013 Ark. App. 701
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant (Reco Givan) was sentenced in 2007 to five years’ probation after convictions for residential burglary, theft, and Controlled Substances Act violations.
- Probation conditions included: avoid offenses punishable by imprisonment, report any arrest to probation within 24 hours, and pay fines/costs and fees.
- In June 2011 Conway police arrested appellant after he discarded cash and baggies containing ~16 grams of cocaine; appellant did not report the arrest to his probation officer and had not paid fines since May 2009.
- A revocation petition was filed in 2011 alleging violations (new offense possession with intent to deliver, failure to report, failure to pay, drug use); a revocation worksheet detailed the arrest and payment history.
- After a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced appellant to imprisonment; appellant appealed on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction because revocation proceeded in a different circuit division | State: court in county/division had commutable authority to revoke | Givan: revocation invalid because original conviction was in a different division | Affirmed — judges in different divisions within same circuit have commutable authority (Nation v. State) |
| Sixty‑day timing requirement for revocation hearing | State: compliance not necessary where defendant was incarcerated on another charge | Givan: revocation after 60 days deprived court of jurisdiction | Affirmed — 60‑day rule protects against unreasonable prehearing detention; no prejudice where defendant was jailed on other charge (Beasley v. Graves) |
| Insufficient evidence that Givan knew probation conditions | State: evidence (prior reporting/payments, probation officer testimony, revocation petition/worksheet) shows awareness | Givan: he did not sign the written conditions and thus lacked knowledge | Affirmed — preponderance standard met; no signature required to prove knowledge (Patterson v. State) |
| Discovery/due‑process notice of alleged violations | State: provided petition and detailed worksheet; continuance granted to defense | Givan: insufficient notice and discovery violations prejudiced defense | Affirmed — notice was adequate and no reversible prejudice shown (Burton v. State) |
Key Cases Cited
- Nation v. State, 283 Ark. 250, 674 S.W.2d 939 (1984) (judges of different divisions in same circuit have commutable authority)
- Beasley v. Graves, 315 Ark. 663, 869 S.W.2d 20 (1994) (60‑day timing protects against unreasonable detention; no prejudice if defendant jailed on other charge)
- Patterson v. State, 99 Ark. App. 136, 257 S.W.3d 921 (2007) (revocation uses preponderance standard; written acknowledgment signature not required)
- Burton v. State, 314 Ark. 317, 862 S.W.2d 252 (1993) (no reversal absent demonstrated prejudice from discovery errors)