Mosley v. State
2016 Ark. App. 353
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- James Mosley, Jr. pleaded guilty in 2006 to two counts of possession with intent to deliver; received 216 months on one count and a 120-month suspended imposition on the other with conditions to obey all laws.
- After parole, the State filed a petition to revoke the suspended sentence on December 30, 2014, alleging Mosley committed kidnapping, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a felon, and third-degree battery.
- Two teenagers, Atwann Stinnett and Carrell White, testified they were taken into a house, held for about an hour and a half, threatened with a gun, physically assaulted, and later escaped while being transported.
- Mosley testified he only spoke with the teens about missing property and denied possessing a gun, threatening, or physically harming them.
- The circuit court credited the teenagers’ testimony over Mosley’s, found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mosley committed false imprisonment, assault, third-degree battery, and possession of a firearm as a felon, and revoked his suspension, sentencing him to 144 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in finding Mosley violated suspension by committing crimes | State: court proved by preponderance that crimes occurred | Mosley: court failed to specify which criminal acts were proven | Court: affirmed; found at least one violation (false imprisonment/assault/battery/illegal firearm possession) proven by preponderance |
| Whether proof of physical injury for third-degree battery was sufficient | State: evidence satisfied preponderance standard for battery | Mosley: State failed to prove physical injury element of third-degree battery | Court: sufficient under preponderance standard; third-degree battery found |
| Whether the court needed to specify which specific crime supported revocation | State: revocation can rest on proof of any violation | Mosley: court did not specify which acts were established | Court: not required to convict of a particular offense; finding that violations occurred was adequate |
| Standard of proof on revocation | State: preponderance of evidence suffices | Mosley: (challenging sufficiency) | Court: applied preponderance standard and deferred to trial-court credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Newborn v. State, 210 S.W.3d 153 (Ark. App. 2005) (evidence insufficient to convict may suffice for revocation due to lower burden)
- Barbee v. State, 56 S.W.3d 370 (Ark. 2001) (appellant need not move for dismissal to challenge sufficiency on appeal)