Henderson v. State
2017 Ark. App. 486
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2010, Shamarius Henderson pled guilty in Hot Spring County to theft (value $2,500+) and first‑degree criminal mischief; he received 60 months’ probation, fines, restitution, costs, and supervision conditions.
- Probation conditions included reporting to a probation officer, maintaining gainful employment and notifying changes in address/employment, paying monthly ADC supervision fees, and paying $1,150 in costs/fines.
- The State filed a petition to revoke probation in 2013 alleging multiple failures to report, failure to provide proof of employment or a valid address, failure to pay supervision fees, and failure to pay fines/fees/costs; an amended petition in 2016 added failure to appear in court.
- After a hearing, the circuit court revoked Henderson’s probation and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment in the ADC.
- Henderson appealed, arguing the court erred in finding he violated requirements to provide proof of employment and a valid employment address because those specific obligations were not in his probation terms; he acknowledged only one proven violation is necessary but contended the sentence reflected aggregate violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probation was revoked based on failure to provide proof of employment/address | State: probationer violated reporting/employment conditions as alleged | Henderson: probation terms did not require proof of employment or an employment address | Court: even if those specific requirements were not in the terms, other violations were proven and supported revocation |
| Whether only one proven violation suffices to revoke and impose any original sentence | State: need only one violation by preponderance to revoke; court may impose original sentence | Henderson: sentence indicates aggregate consideration of multiple violations | Court: confirms single proven violation is sufficient; trial court authorized to impose any original sentence |
| Whether revocation findings were against the preponderance of the evidence | Henderson: challenges sufficiency regarding employment/address violations | State: proved other violations (failure to report, nonpayment, failure to appear) | Court: revocation not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence; affirmed |
| Whether sentencing was improper because based on multiple violations | Henderson: argued sentencing reflected aggregate violations | State: sentencing proper upon proof of at least one violation | Court: sentencing valid; could have imposed same sentence for any proven violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Stinnett v. State, 63 Ark. App. 72, 973 S.W.2d 826 (Ark. Ct. App. 1998) (State must prove probation violation by a preponderance; appellate review requires deference unless revocation is clearly against the preponderance)
- Brock v. State, 70 Ark. App. 107, 14 S.W.3d 908 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000) (only one proven violation is necessary to sustain probation revocation)
- Cox v. State, 365 Ark. 358, 229 S.W.3d 883 (Ark. 2006) (upon revocation the trial court may impose any sentence that could have been imposed originally for the underlying offense)