Valencia v. State
2016 Ark. App. 176
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Erica Valencia pled guilty in 2011 to theft (17CR-10-409) and attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud (17CR-10-580) and received 36 months’ probation and obligations to pay costs, fees, and $2,377.75 restitution.
- The State petitioned to revoke in December 2011; on January 11, 2012 the court ordered 24 months in a community-corrections center followed by suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) terms (including restitution in $50 monthly installments and additional written conditions).
- The State later alleged failures to comply with community-service and payment obligations; Valencia pleaded guilty to contempt in September 2013 and was ordered to perform 13 days of community service and resume payments.
- Valencia failed drug tests, did not complete the community service schedule, and stopped making restitution payments after January 14, 2014; the State filed amended petitions and a revocation hearing was held April 16, 2015.
- The trial court revoked Valencia’s SIS and sentenced her to 72 months’ imprisonment (17CR-10-409) and 48 months’ SIS (17CR-10-580), to run consecutively; on appeal Valencia argued the SIS could not be revoked because she had not been properly “served” with the written terms and conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of revocation — whether Valencia was served with written SIS terms | State: sentencing order (including terms) was part of the clerk’s record and Valencia had notice and partially complied (made a payment) | Valencia: the specific terms-and-conditions document required by statute was absent from the clerk’s file and thus she was not properly served | Court held terms/conditions were part of the January 11, 2012 sentencing order in the record; Valencia had notice; revocation was not clearly erroneous (preponderance standard) |
| Legality of consecutive sentences | State: attempted to run SIS in 17CR-10-580 consecutively to imprisonment in 17CR-10-409 | Valencia: consecutive running of SIS with another sentence is statutorily improper | Court held the consecutive arrangement was illegal under Arkansas law; modified sentence to run the two sentences concurrently |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. State, 466 S.W.3d 418 (Ark. App. 2015) (revocation requires proof by preponderance; appellate review deferential to trial court on credibility)
- Johnson v. State, 447 S.W.3d 143 (Ark. App. 2014) (no requirement that defendant sign or introduce written acknowledgment of receipt of probation terms at revocation hearing)
- Costes v. State, 287 S.W.3d 639 (Ark. App. 2008) (proof that probationer received written conditions is a procedural issue, not sufficiency of evidence)
- Walden v. State, 433 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. 2014) (Ark. Code interpreted to require suspended sentences imposed with imprisonment for different crimes to run concurrently)
- Reyes v. State, 454 S.W.3d 279 (Ark. App. 2015) (illegal sentencing issues may be raised for the first time on appeal)