Hazelwood v. State
2019 Ark. App. 270
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- In July 2013 Hazelwood pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and received 54 months imprisonment with 60 months suspended imposition of sentence (SIS).
- SIS conditions included no new criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment and a written waiver requiring Hazelwood to submit to searches of person, residence, vehicle, or other property at any time by any supervising or law-enforcement officer.
- On August 5, 2016, Officer Brian Bailey encountered Hazelwood in a truck, verified an outstanding Jonesboro warrant and that Hazelwood was on parole, asked him to exit, handcuffed and searched him, and found a bag containing 0.2834 grams of methamphetamine.
- The State petitioned to revoke Hazelwood’s SIS (alleging failure to pay fines and the new possession offense). A revocation hearing was held June 11, 2018; lab results confirmed the substance was methamphetamine.
- Hazelwood testified he was never served with the warrant, denied possessing drugs, and argued the search occurred before the warrant was confirmed; he also relied on the SIS search-waiver language to argue against admissibility of the seized evidence.
- The circuit court denied Hazelwood’s motion to dismiss, found the search permissible given his parole status and the SIS waiver, concluded a SIS violation occurred, and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment; Hazelwood appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hazelwood) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence obtained from search was illegally obtained and thus inadmissible in revocation proceeding | Search was unlawful because warrant was not confirmed before pat-down/search and Hazelwood did not consent to use of seized items at future hearings despite SIS waiver | Officer lawfully initiated contact after confirming warrant and Hazelwood’s parole status; SIS search-waiver authorized searches by any officer at any time | Court held search lawful for revocation purposes: Hazelwood’s SIS waiver permitted searches and he need not separately consent to use of evidence in revocation proceedings |
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction despite notice of appeal listing wrong case number | Hazelwood’s notice inadvertently listed new possession case number rather than revocation case number | Substantial compliance with Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(e) is sufficient; content makes clear revocation is appealed | Court held it has jurisdiction because notice and arguments plainly showed the revocation was appealed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 355 Ark. 630, 144 S.W.3d 254 (2004) (standard and deference for revocation of probation or suspended sentence)
- Springs v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 364, 525 S.W.3d 490 (2017) (only one violation required to sustain revocation)
- Mann v. Pierce, 2016 Ark. 418, 505 S.W.3d 150 (2016) (substantial compliance with appellate notice requirements suffices for jurisdiction)