Thompson v. State
2017 Ark. App. 391
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Keithrick Thompson pleaded guilty in July 2015 to attempted residential burglary and theft and received five years' probation on each case.
- The State filed petitions to revoke probation in March 2016 alleging multiple probation violations, including failure to report, missed appointments, a failed drug test, and unpaid fees.
- At the August 2016 revocation hearing the court found Thompson admitted he stopped reporting after December 2015; the probation officer testified Thompson missed appointments in Aug., Oct., and Nov. 2015 and ceased reporting after Dec. 2015.
- Thompson testified he stopped reporting because his mother was frequently hospitalized and he feared incarceration for prior violations.
- The trial court revoked probation in both cases; Thompson appealed and counsel filed an Anders/no‑merit brief asserting no nonfrivolous issues, while Thompson filed pro se points for reversal.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocations and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke probation | Thompson contends revocation was improper because his failure to report was excused by his mother’s hospitalizations and other alleged defects in proof | State argues it proved by a preponderance that Thompson inexcusably failed to comply with reporting requirements | Revocation affirmed: court deferred to trial court credibility findings and found evidence supported revocation |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Thompson asserts counsel was ineffective at the revocation hearing | State argues this claim was not raised below and is procedurally barred on appeal | Claim not considered on appeal as it was not raised below |
| Probation officer’s testimony lacked documentary support | Thompson argues the officer’s testimony about missed reports wasn’t supported by records | State points to the officer’s credible testimony and Thompson’s admission he quit reporting | Court credited officer’s testimony and Thompson’s admission; no merit to challenge |
| Challenges to drug test result and unpaid fees | Thompson disputes those alleged violations | State notes revocation need only be supported by at least one proven violation (failure to report) | Court found those issues irrelevant because revocation was justified by failure to report |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for attorney withdrawal and filing of no‑merit brief on appeal)
- Nichols v. State, 69 Ark. App. 212, 11 S.W.3d 19 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000) (ineffective‑assistance claim cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
- Humphrey v. State, 458 S.W.3d 265 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (deference to trial court on witness credibility and weight of testimony)