Oliver v. State
2017 Ark. App. 16
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael Oliver was sentenced to a twelve-year suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) in May 2014 after guilty pleas to multiple property offenses and as a habitual offender.
- An amended petition to revoke his SIS (Oct. 2015) alleged new offenses arising from a June 14, 2015 incident (public intoxication, obstruction, criminal mischief, domestic battery, terroristic threatening, habitual-offender allegation) and alleged failure to make required payments for restitution, fines, fees, and costs.
- At the revocation hearing, witnesses (Deputy Whitman, Amita Oliver, and Janice Tuck) testified about Oliver’s intoxication, damage to a vehicle and phone, and physical contact with Amita and Janice. Victim-witness coordinator Janice Gilbreath testified Oliver missed multiple monthly payments and paid only intermittently.
- The circuit court found Oliver violated SIS conditions by the misconduct in the car and by inexcusably failing to pay court-ordered amounts, revoked the SIS, and imposed a twelve-year sentence; the court also denied Oliver’s late request to speak.
- Counsel filed an Anders no-merit brief and moved to withdraw; Oliver filed a pro se statement claiming the State had dropped charges and seeking release. The appellate court provided Anders review, considered the record, and affirmed and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Oliver's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was insufficient to revoke SIS for the alleged subsequent offenses | Oliver argued insufficient evidence that he committed the offenses and that alleged acts were not within Arkansas | State relied on witness testimony showing intoxication, property damage, and physical contact supporting violations | Even if other grounds were contested, court found failure-to-pay independently supported revocation; claims regarding evidence of offenses are rendered harmless |
| Whether revocation could be based on failure to pay fines, fees, costs, restitution | Oliver argued payments he made (including some larger than required) excuse nonpayment | State produced evidence (unobjected) that Oliver missed several payments and was delinquent | Court held failure to pay proved by preponderance of the evidence and is a sufficient, independent basis to revoke SIS |
| Whether Confrontation Clause barred Deputy Whitman’s testimony recounting victims’ statements | Oliver objected on Confrontation Clause grounds | State argued witnesses were present to testify, so testimony was admissible | Trial court overruled objection because witnesses were present; appellate court found any error harmless given failure-to-pay ground |
| Whether dismissal/nolle prosequi in separate criminal prosecution required release or reversal of revocation | Oliver argued State dropped charges and he should be released | State noted different burdens: criminal dismissal doesn’t negate evidence sufficient for revocation (preponderance standard) | Court held dismissal in separate criminal case does not invalidate revocation based on independent failure-to-pay ground; pro se point lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements for counsel’s withdrawal in no-merit appeals)
- Eads v. State, 47 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. App.) (Anders-related standards for appellate counsel duties)
- Peals v. State, 453 S.W.3d 151 (Ark. App.) (only one violation need be proved to support revocation)
- Robinson v. State, 446 S.W.3d 190 (Ark. App.) (revocation standards)
- Ingram v. State, 363 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. App.) (distinguishing burdens of proof between criminal prosecution and revocation proceedings)