Payne v. State II
2017 Ark. App. 265
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Monty Payne was serving a five-year suspended sentence from an October 2013 plea (Class D felony breaking/entering and Class A misdemeanor theft).
- A Boone County jury later convicted Payne of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
- The circuit court revoked Payne’s suspended sentence based on those convictions and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment (to run concurrent with another case).
- Payne appealed, arguing (1) insufficiency of the evidence supporting the possession convictions and (2) that the State failed to prove he had been given the written conditions of his suspended sentence.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency challenge (affirming the convictions under the higher standard discussed in the companion opinion) and declined to consider the written-conditions argument because Payne failed to preserve it at trial.
- The court sua sponte found the revocation as to the misdemeanor sentence illegal because the 12-month suspended misdemeanor sentence had expired before the State filed its first revocation petition; the judgment was modified to delete the misdemeanor revocation and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession convictions | Payne argued evidence was insufficient to support convictions | State relied on trial evidence; court applied substantial-evidence standard to affirm in companion opinion | Convictions upheld (court here affirms revocation as supported by those convictions) |
| Failure to prove written conditions were given | Payne argued revocation invalid because no proof he received written conditions | State noted no contemporaneous objection and argued issue not preserved | Not reached on merits; claim not preserved for appeal |
| Legality of revoking misdemeanor sentence | Payne contended revocation improper (implicit) | State sought revocation of both sentences | Court found revocation of misdemeanor illegal because the 12-month suspended term had expired before petition; order modified to delete misdemeanor revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. State, 494 S.W.3d 431 (Ark. App. 2016) (substantial-evidence standard discussed for convictions)
- Stinnett v. State, 973 S.W.2d 826 (Ark. App. 1998) (preponderance standard applies in revocation proceedings)
- Meador v. State, 664 S.W.2d 878 (Ark. App. 1984) (definition of preponderance of the evidence)
- Bradley v. State, 65 S.W.3d 874 (Ark. 2002) (evidence insufficient to convict may suffice to revoke under lower burden)
- Ross v. State, 594 S.W.2d 852 (Ark. 1980) (revocation reversed where no proof appellant violated a written condition)
- Harness v. State, 101 S.W.3d 235 (Ark. 2003) (illegal sentence is a subject-matter-jurisdiction issue that may be raised sua sponte)
- Wright v. State, 214 S.W.3d 280 (Ark. App. 2005) (court may raise illegal sentence sua sponte)