594 S.W.3d 92
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- Bohanon pled guilty in 2014 to possession of a controlled substance (Class C) and furnishing/possessing prohibited articles (Class B); received six years in ADC and 72 months’ suspended imposition of sentence (SIS).
- State petitioned to revoke SIS after April 2018 arrest: backpack found under Bohanon’s legs contained large quantities of drugs, a .44-magnum handgun, a digital scale, Bohanon’s ID and Social Security card.
- Bohanon testified the backpack was not his, that he had lost his wallet earlier, and that he did not know the bag or its contents.
- Circuit court found Bohanon violated SIS terms and revoked SIS, sentencing him to 180 months’ incarceration.
- Appellate counsel filed a no-merit Anders brief and moved to withdraw, asserting no nonfrivolous issues; Bohanon did not timely file pro se points despite being given opportunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for revocation | State: evidence (bag under Bohanon, cards in bag, drugs, gun) supports finding of violation | Bohanon: bag not his; unaware of bag/contents | Affirmed — preponderance standard satisfied; court credited State and physical evidence |
| Exclusion of hearsay testimony during defendant's testimony | State: objections sustained (hearsay) | Bohanon: sought to relate statements by others (no proffer) | Affirmed — exclusion review limited because defendant failed to proffer the excluded testimony |
| Confrontation Clause as basis for excluding defendant’s testimony | State: relied on hearsay objections (cited by counsel on appeal) | Bohanon: implicit attack that exclusion violated rights | Rejected — Confrontation Clause not a proper basis to object to defendant’s own testimony; court affirmed on proffer ground |
| Circuit court rejecting plea agreement because defendant would not admit knowledge | State: court required factual basis and admission for plea | Bohanon: refused to admit knowledge of bag/contents | Affirmed — not preserved by objection; court has duty to ensure factual basis and admission for plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (revocation proceedings require certain due-process protections, including confrontation rights)
- Rodgers v. State, 360 Ark. 24 (Ark. 2004) (party must proffer excluded evidence to preserve challenge to exclusion)
- Arnett v. State, 353 Ark. 165 (Ark. 2003) (same — need for proffer to review excluded testimony)
- Pyle v. State, 340 Ark. 53 (Ark. 2000) (failure to object preserves nothing for appeal)
- Schneider v. State, 290 Ark. 454 (Ark. 1986) (court must find factual basis for guilty plea; defendant must admit guilt)