Myers v. State
2014 Ark. App. 720
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Marlon Myers pleaded guilty to first-degree domestic battery and received six years’ imprisonment plus 14 years’ suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) with conditions including no law violations and payment of a $100 public-defender fee.
- The State petitioned to revoke Myers’s SIS, alleging new criminal convictions (second-offense DWI and driving on a suspended license) and unpaid fines/costs including the $100 fee.
- At the revocation hearing the State introduced certified convictions and a court case profile showing outstanding monetary balances; Myers admitted to the DWI plea.
- Myers moved for a directed verdict after the State rested; the motion was denied, he testified, and the court revoked his SIS and sentenced him to four years in prison followed by ten years’ SIS.
- On appeal Myers argued (1) the State failed to prove he was subject to an SIS, (2) the State failed to prove the SIS terms, and (3) the State failed to prove he had been given written terms — claiming insufficient evidence to support revocation.
- The Court of Appeals held Myers failed to preserve these arguments because he did not raise procedural objections at the revocation hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Myers) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State proved Myers was subject to an SIS | State did not introduce a copy of the SIS to prove he was subject to it | Revocation may proceed; defendant failed to object below | Not preserved for appeal; argument rejected |
| Whether State proved the SIS terms and conditions | State failed to introduce written terms and conditions | Many SIS/probation conditions (e.g., no law violations) are statutory; State introduced evidence of alleged violations | Not preserved for appeal; argument rejected |
| Whether State proved Myers received written notice of SIS terms | Lack of written notice prevents revocation for uncommunicated conditions | Failure to obtain written conditions is a procedural issue that must be raised below | Not preserved for appeal; argument rejected |
| Whether Scroggins creates a hybrid exception allowing review despite lack of objection | Scroggins treated introduction of terms as procedural/sufficiency hybrid | Scroggins is an outlier and fact-specific; prior precedent treats these objections as procedural | Court declines to follow Scroggins here; argument fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbee v. State, 346 Ark. 185, 56 S.W.3d 370 (argument on sufficiency may be raised on appeal absent a directed-verdict motion)
- Whitener v. State, 96 Ark. App. 354, 241 S.W.3d 779 (failure to introduce written probation terms is a procedural objection requiring preservation)
- Nelson v. State, 84 Ark. App. 373, 141 S.W.3d 900 (proof of written delivery of probation conditions is procedural and waived if not raised at trial)
- Scroggins v. State, 389 S.W.3d 40 (Ark. Ct. App.) (described introduction of probation terms as a procedural/sufficiency hybrid in a fact-specific context)
- Costes v. State, 103 Ark. App. 171, 287 S.W.3d 639 (whether probationer received written conditions is procedural; written notice prevents misunderstanding)