Joseph Cessna v. State of Arkansas
2023 Ark. App. 9
Ark. Ct. App.2023Background
- In June 2018, Joseph Cessna pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver (Class A felony) and was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment followed by 60 months’ suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) conditioned on living a law‑abiding life.
- The State petitioned to revoke the SIS after alleged new offenses on Sept. 18, 2020 (possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia) and a failure to appear in court on Jan. 12, 2021.
- At the Oct. 6, 2021 revocation hearing, the State admitted exhibits (including the sentencing order and bench warrant) and called Deputy Kyle Jones, who testified the search of Cessna’s car revealed meth and a glass pipe within Cessna’s reach.
- Cessna testified that the vehicle and contraband belonged to his girlfriend and denied knowledge or ownership of the drugs; he offered no excuse for the failure to appear.
- The circuit court revoked Cessna’s SIS and sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment followed by 120 months’ SIS; Cessna timely appealed.
- Counsel filed an Anders no‑merit brief and moved to withdraw; Cessna filed pro se claims including ineffective assistance and that the court failed to provide a written statement of reasons for revocation.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Cessna's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence suffices to revoke SIS (possession/failure to appear) | Bench warrant and deputy testimony prove violation by preponderance; either violation alone supports revocation | Denied possession (blamed girlfriend); no excuse offered for failure to appear | Affirmed: failure to appear (bench warrant) alone supports revocation; credibility determinations for circuit court |
| Whether revocation must be reversed for lack of a written statement of reasons under §16‑93‑307(b)(5) | Issue not preserved—not raised below—so not a meritorious appellate ground | Argued revocation defective for lack of written statement; counsel ineffective for not requesting it | Not reviewed on the merits: unpreserved; Anders brief correctly treats it as nonmeritorious |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the written‑statement issue or inquire into failure to appear | Ineffective‑assistance claim not raised below and therefore unpreserved | Claims counsel failed to request written findings and failed to investigate/explain failure to appear | Not preserved for review; therefore not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel to file a no‑merit brief and courts to independently review the record for frivolousness)
- T.S. v. State, 534 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (Anders review requires full examination of proceedings)
- Gonzales v. State, 599 S.W.3d 341 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020) (revocation affirmed if any alleged violation proven by preponderance; defer to factfinder credibility)
- McClain v. State, 489 S.W.3d 179 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (defendant must offer excuse for failure to appear; credibility for factfinder)
- Payne v. State, 731 S.W.2d 235 (Ark. Ct. App. 1987) (affirming failure‑to‑appear conviction; defendant must establish reasonable excuse)
- Kennedy v. State, 635 S.W.3d 524 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021) (failure to preserve statutory‑findings argument bars appellate review)