Phillips v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 320

In 2013, Dalana Phillips pled guilty to commercial burglary, theft of property, theft by receiving, and possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to 36 months’ probation with fines, fees, and court costs.
Later in 2013 the State successfully petitioned to revoke probation; Phillips pled guilty and received RCF time and suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) on counts.
Phillips was released from RCF in October 2015; in January 2016 the State filed a new petition to revoke alleging she passed a forged check at Wal‑Mart and failed to make court‑ordered payments.
The circuit court found by a preponderance that Phillips violated the terms of her SIS (forgery and failure to pay), revoked her SIS, and sentenced her to the Department of Correction plus additional SIS.
The court also ordered Phillips to pay $447.11 in restitution for the forged check; Phillips objected and appealed the restitution order.
The State concedes error as to restitution; the Court of Appeals reversed the restitution order and remanded for a sentencing order consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court may order restitution following SIS revocation based on a preponderance finding of new criminal conduct	State: restitution is appropriate because conduct (forged check) was proven by preponderance during revocation	Phillips: restitution not authorized absent adjudication of guilt or guilty plea for that specific offense	Restitution was unauthorized; reversal and remand to remove restitution order

Daffron v. State, 505 S.W.3d 209 (Ark. Ct. App.) (preponderance standard for revoking SIS)
Simmons v. State, 205 S.W.3d 194 (Ark. Ct. App.) (reversed restitution ordered for conduct not charged or adjudicated)
Fortson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 553 (Ark. Ct. App.) (restitution limited to offenses of conviction)
Walden v. State, 433 S.W.3d 864 (Ark.) (sentencing governed by statute; must follow statutory authorization)