Lambert v. State
2013 Ark. App. 64
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lambert pled guilty to five felonies across two cases in January 2006, receiving probation on some counts and suspended imposition on others.
- Probation conditions were attached to the disposition order and signed by the circuit judge.
- In March 2006 the State sought probation revocation for alleged violations including failure to report, attending group sessions, drug testing, and abstaining from illegal drugs.
- A revocation hearing occurred in September 2011; the circuit court found probation violations based on failure to report, attend group sessions, and submit to drug testing.
- The court sentenced Lambert to multiple concurrent terms totaling 15 years on the probation-violation counts.
- Lambert appealed alleging lack of statutorily required written notice of probation terms and insufficiency of evidence to prove violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Lambert properly provided written notice of probation terms? | Lambert contends no signed acknowledgment proved notice. | Lambert relies on lack of signed receipt; Patterson supports no signed acknowledgment required. | Notice requirement met; signed acknowledgment not required to prove notice. |
| Did the State prove by a preponderance that Lambert violated probation? | Rowlett’s testimony was insufficient on dates and conditions; concerns about drug-test chain of custody. | Credibility to Rowlett; Lambert failed to report, attend sessions, and submit tests, satisfying proof. | Yes; the record supports at least one violation by a preponderance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 351 Ark. 229 (Ark. 2002) (preponderance standard; notice and violation proof relationship)
- Rudd v. State, 76 Ark.App. 121 (Ark. App. 2001) (need only one violated term to revoke probation)
- Patterson v. State, 99 Ark.App. 136-A (Ark. App. 2007) (no signed acknowledgment required to prove notice)
- Neely v. State, 7 Ark.App. 238 (Ark. App. 1983) (absence of proof of notice may compel reversal)
- O’Neal v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 241 (Ark. App. 2010) (reversal where notice was undisputedly absent)