Ta v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 220

In May 2012 Steven Van Ta pleaded guilty to multiple drug- and arrest-related offenses and received suspended sentences (SIS) of varying lengths, including a ten-year SIS for conspiracy to deliver roxicodone.
Conditions of suspension included obeying the law and paying fines, costs, and fees.
In July 2014 the State petitioned to revoke Ta’s suspended sentences, alleging he committed first-degree terroristic threatening and aggravated assault on a family or household member, and that he failed to pay $1,156 in fines/costs/fees.
At the revocation hearing the court admitted a ledger showing the unpaid balance and heard victim Vankham Sisouphanh’s testimony that Ta pinned her, threatened to kill her if she left, and stabbed a knife into the floor near her head; an officer observed linoleum stab marks and a knife missing its tip.
The trial court found Ta committed first-degree terroristic threatening, concluded the evidence supported at least third-degree assault on a family/household member, and found Ta had inexcusably failed to pay court-ordered amounts.
The court revoked Ta’s suspended sentences and imposed six years’ imprisonment followed by a ten-year SIS; Ta appealed only arguing insufficient evidence to support revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ta)	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to revoke SIS based on first-degree terroristic threatening	Ta threatened to kill Sisouphanh and acted purposefully by pinning her and stabbing a knife near her head, showing intent to terrorize	Ta argued victim’s equivocal testimony and conduct showed he lacked purpose to terrorize; her hesitancy and return to the residence undercut fear	Court held evidence supported first-degree terroristic threatening (threat + purposeful conduct); finding not against preponderance of evidence
Whether evidence supported aggravated-assault on a family/household member (or lesser included offenses)	State alleged aggravated assault; conduct created danger and fear	Ta argued victim’s actions (returning alone, asking only for escort) showed lack of substantial danger	Court found aggravated assault uncertain but affirmed revocation on alternative basis: third-degree assault (lesser-included) proven by preponderance
Whether failure to pay fines/costs/fees justified revocation	Ledger showed $1,156 unpaid; after proof of nonpayment burden shifted to Ta to explain nonpayment and he offered no reasonable excuse	Ta argued State failed to prove willful nonpayment	Court held nonpayment proved and Ta failed to justify it; inexcusable failure supported revocation

Sherril v. State, 439 S.W.3d 76 (Ark. App. 2014) (revocation standard: State need only prove one violation by a preponderance; insufficient criminal-evidence can suffice for revocation)
Wooten v. State, 799 S.W.2d 560 (Ark. App. 1990) (aggravated-assault conviction may be modified to lesser-included third-degree assault)