Holmes-Childers v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 464

Alisha Childers pled guilty to second-degree domestic battery (Class C felony) in April 2015 and received 72 months’ probation with a $2,200 fine/fees balance and a $70 monthly payment requirement.
The State petitioned to revoke probation in August 2015 for absconding (failing to keep probation updated, report, and return calls) and for failing to make any required payments.
Evidence: probation intake showed nonworking phone number; administrator sent letters and requested revocation after being unable to contact Childers; Childers later reported and tested positive for methamphetamine; she thereafter inconsistently reported.
Childers and her mother testified Childers receives Social Security disability (mother is payee), mother provided funds for payments, and Childers claimed lack of transportation/phone knowledge and that her husband stole money; Childers admitted meth use while on probation.
The trial court denied directed-verdict motions, found Childers willfully violated probation (nonpayment and absconding), revoked probation, and sentenced her to eight years in the Department of Correction with two years SIS conditioned on completing in-prison drug/alcohol treatment.
On appeal the court affirmed revocation but modified the sentence to remove the illegal requirement that Childers complete drug/alcohol treatment while incarcerated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to revoke probation for nonpayment	State: introduction of nonpayment evidence supports revocation; only one violation needed	Childers: inability to pay and credible excuses (mother gave money; husband stole it; disability income managed by mother)	Revocation affirmed — court found failure-to-pay inexcusable and no good-faith effort to pay
Whether evidence was sufficient to revoke for absconding/failure to report	State: missed reports, bad phone number, failure to return calls = absconding	Childers: lacked resources, didn’t know probation’s phone number, lacked transportation	Revocation affirmed — court found failure to report was inexcusable and could have looked up number
Whether the trial court erred by not applying factors on ability to pay	Childers: trial court should have considered statutory factors for restitution ability to pay	State: not preserved and not applicable because no restitution was ordered	Rejected — not preserved/relevant; court properly assessed nonpayment and good-faith effort
Whether sentencing condition (in‑prison treatment) is lawful	State: condition imposed as part of SIS and incarceration	Childers: condition challenged as illegal	Modified — treatment-as-condition-of-incarceration is illegal; removed from sentence

Miller v. State, 386 S.W.3d 65 (Ark. App. 2011) (standard for probation-revocation authority)
Lamb v. State, 45 S.W.3d 869 (Ark. App. 2001) (lesser evidence may suffice for revocation than for conviction)
Rhoades v. State, 379 S.W.3d 659 (Ark. App. 2010) (burden-shifting on failure-to-pay and credibility of defendant)
Peals v. State, 453 S.W.3d 151 (Ark. App. 2015) (State’s ultimate burden to prove failure to pay was inexcusable)
Ferguson v. State, 479 S.W.3d 588 (Ark. App. 2016) (appellate review limited; defer to trial court on credibility)
Richie v. State, 357 S.W.3d 909 (Ark. 2009) (no authority to impose drug-or-alcohol treatment as a condition of incarceration)