Mott v. State
2013 Ark. App. 529
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- In Aug. 2009 Tonya Mott pleaded guilty to breaking or entering (Class D) and theft (Class C) and was sentenced to three years’ probation and ordered to pay $3,150 restitution plus various fees.
- In Sept. 2009 the State filed a petition to revoke probation based on drug-court violations; in Nov. 2009 Mott changed her plea to not resist and agreed to two years’ incarceration.
- The Dec. 2009 amended judgment and commitment stated that fines, fees, and “probation also satisfied by pen sentence,” and it reflected $3,450 owed in restitution (including a treatment fee).
- In June 2011 the State filed another petition to revoke Mott’s probation for failure to pay restitution and alleged she remained on probation and had made no payments.
- Mott moved to dismiss, arguing the 2009 revocation and judgment satisfied/relinquished probation; the trial court denied the motion, revoked probation again, and sentenced her to two more years. Mott appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court retained jurisdiction to revoke or punish for nonpayment of restitution after Mott’s probation was previously revoked and the judgment stated probation was satisfied by the penitentiary sentence | State: §5-4-303(h)(2) lets court continue jurisdiction or revoke even after probation period ends for unpaid restitution; same power applies here | Mott: Probation was already revoked and expressly satisfied by the 2009 pen sentence—no probation remains to revoke | Reversed and dismissed: court erred; probation had been satisfied by the 2009 judgment, so there was no probationary period left to revoke |
Key Cases Cited
- Kyle v. State, 312 Ark. 274, 849 S.W.2d 935 (1993) (upheld extension of probation beyond original term to secure restitution where probation had not been revoked)
- Smith v. State, 83 Ark. App. 48, 115 S.W.3d 820 (2003) (court retained jurisdiction under restitution statute where probation had expired by passage of time)
- Stinnett v. State, 63 Ark. App. 72, 973 S.W.2d 826 (1998) (burden on State to prove probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Rudd v. State, 76 Ark. App. 121, 61 S.W.3d 885 (2001) (appellant bears burden to show revocation findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence)