Mahomes v. State
2013 Ark. App. 215
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mahomes appeals revocation of probation for two counts of possession of a controlled substance.
- The State alleged a new offense—domestic battery—violating probation’s no-offense condition; evidence centered on a November 28, 2011 disturbance at Mahomes’s residence.
- Circuit court found by preponderance that Mahomes committed domestic battering and revoked probation.
- Evidence included officer testimony, written statements by Mahomes’s daughter and Tracey Mahomes, and letters by Tracey requesting charges be dropped; credibility weighed against Mahomes and Tracey by the court.
- Mahomes argued sufficiency of evidence, lack of readiness for hearing, and a Sixth Amendment confrontation issue from hearsay; the court denied relief and affirmed the revocation.
- Post-revocation sentencing forms contained inconsistencies; the court imposed concurrent ten-year sentences with four years suspended, but forms did not reflect probation-based revocation specifics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke probation | State contends preponderance supports revocation. | Mahomes contends evidence insufficient to prove probation violation. | Evidence supports revocation; credibility weighed in favor of the court. |
| Motion for continuance | State argues no abuse of discretion; delay not warranted to prejudice. | Mahomes asserts lack of time to prepare and counsel readiness. | No abuse of discretion; continuance denial proper given preparation time and circumstances. |
| Confrontation and hearsay in revocation | State maintains hearsay did not violate confrontation; independent evidence supported revocation. | Mahomes argues admission of hearsay violated Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. | Harmless error; denial affirmed as independent evidence supported revocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dooly v. State, 377 S.W.3d 471 (Ark. App. 2010) (revocation burden is preponderance; one violation suffices)
- Smith v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 613 (Ark. App. 2012) (directed verdict not required in revocation proceedings)
- Wicks v. State, 606 S.W.2d 366 (Ark. 1980) (Wicks exceptions to contemporaneous objection; rarely applied)
- White v. State, 408 S.W.3d 720 (Ark. 2012) (limits third and fourth Wicks exceptions for confrontation errors)
- Hayes v. State, 381 S.W.3d 117 (Ark. App. 2011) (continuance standard; prejudice required)
- J.S. v. State, 372 S.W.3d 370 (Ark. App. 2009) (contemporaneous-objection context in review)