Soto v. State
2013 Ark. App. 619
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2009 Rodolfo Soto pleaded guilty to Class C felony non-support and was placed on seven years’ supervised probation with fines, costs, fees, and $15,125 restitution (monthly payment plan).
- Soto was released from jail October 16, 2009; payments were to begin 30 days after release.
- By the time of the revocation petition (filed Aug. 29, 2012), Soto had paid $460 and was behind on payments and probation fees; he had not reported since December 19, 2011.
- The State alleged multiple probation violations: failure to pay fines/costs/restitution/fees, failure to report, failure to notify sheriff/probation of address/employment, and moving without permission.
- At the revocation hearing Soto admitted nonpayment and the reporting lapse, explained he lost employment and struggled to find work because of his felony, and testified he had “put off” reporting while trying to earn money.
- The trial court found probation violations (nonpayment and failure to report), revoked probation, sentenced Soto to four years in a regional punishment facility with a six-year suspended imposition of sentence; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw under the no-merit procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Soto) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported revocation of probation | Evidence shows Soto failed to pay required fines/costs/restitution and failed to report; one proven violation is sufficient to revoke | Soto argued inability to pay due to low wages, job loss, and difficulty finding work because of felony; he hoped to become current before reporting | Court held evidence was sufficient; revocation upheld (preponderance standard, deference to trial court credibility findings) |
| Whether Soto’s excuses (financial hardship) excused noncompliance | Court should enforce probation conditions regardless of claimed hardship; State need only prove one violation | Soto claimed financial hardship and unemployment made compliance impracticable | Court rejected excuses — credibility for such claims is for trial court; failure to comply was inexcusable for revocation purposes |
| Whether appellate counsel complied with no-merit withdrawal procedure | Counsel filed motion to withdraw and a brief listing adverse rulings and why they lack merit under Rule 4-3(k) | Soto filed no pro se points after being notified | Court found counsel complied with Rule 4-3(k), granted motion to withdraw, but cautioned counsel to reference Anders in future no-merit briefs |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (sets standards for appellate counsel’s no-merit withdrawal in criminal appeals)
- Ingram v. State, 363 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (a probationer’s excuses are credibility matters for the trial court in revocation proceedings)