Martin v. State
2017 Ark. App. 399
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Isaiah Martin pleaded guilty in May 2015 to second-degree battery and received a three-year suspended sentence with probation and standard conditions (reporting, no illegal drugs, payment of fines/fees, notify address/employer).
- The State petitioned to revoke his probation on December 29, 2015, alleging multiple violations: failure to pay fines/fees, failure to report to his probation officer, failure to pay probation fees, failure to update address/employment, drug use (positive test), and leaving the state without permission.
- At the September 1, 2016 revocation hearing, the State presented evidence: Martin owed $1,170 in court costs/fines, missed reporting for roughly a year, and had a positive drug test (THC, opiates, alcohol) from July 2, 2015.
- Martin testified he was homeless, had limited income, had been violently attacked (broken ankle) in August 2015, feared retaliation and thus did not file a police report or report to his PO, briefly relocated to Ohio, and claimed inability (but intent) to pay fines until his wife received a lump-sum payment.
- The circuit court found Martin in violation of probation, revoked probation, and imposed four years’ incarceration. Counsel filed an Anders no-merit brief on appeal; Martin filed no pro se points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to revoke probation based on failure to report | State: Martin failed to report for ~1 year; PO testimony supports violation | Martin: Fear after assault and homelessness explain nonreporting; lacked intent to evade | Held: Sufficient evidence; single proven violation supports revocation |
| Sufficiency to revoke based on positive drug test | State: Positive drug screen for THC, opiates, alcohol constitutes probation violation | Martin: Did not contest test significance in record; argued mitigating circumstances generally | Held: Positive drug test is admissible proof of violation and supports revocation |
| Sufficiency to revoke based on failure to pay fines/fees | State: Martin owed $1,170 and made no payments as required | Martin: Lacked present ability to pay; claimed future payment after wife’s lump sum and intent to obtain work | Held: Failure to pay is a valid ground; inability to pay may mitigate but does not negate violation when other violations exist |
| Sufficiency to revoke based on leaving state/not notifying authorities | State: Martin left the state (Ohio) and failed to notify sheriff/probation office | Martin: Left due to fear for safety after assault; feared retaliation and thus did not report | Held: Leaving without permission/updating authorities supports revocation; State need prove only one violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires appointed counsel to file a brief explaining why appeal is frivolous and permits counsel to seek withdrawal when no nonfrivolous issues exist)
- Eads v. State, 47 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. App. 2001) (Anders/no-merit procedures and appellate review standards explained)