MONICA RENEA MAY v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-13-688
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
June 4, 2014
2014 Ark. App. 365
KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge
DIVISION III; APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-11-782]; HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR. JUDGE; AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge
Appellant Monica Renea May pleaded guilty to Class C felony possession of a controlled substance on August 30, 2011, and she was placed on four years’ probation. On January 23, 2012, the State filed a petition to revoke Ms. May‘s probation, alleging multiple violations including failure to pay fines and costs, and failure to report to probation as directed. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order on May 13, 2013, revoking appellant‘s probation and sentencing her to three years in prison followed by a three-year suspended imposition of sentence. Ms. May now appeals from her revocation, and we affirm.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Ms. May‘s conditions of probation required her to pay $1395 in fines and costs at a rate of $50 per month beginning on October 10, 2011. A ledger sheet was admitted into evidence showing that Ms. May had paid nothing toward her fines and costs. Amy Peyton, the collector of fines and costs for the Crittenden County Sheriff‘s Office, confirmed in her testimony that Ms. May had made no payments, and she stated she had never heard from Ms. May.
Ms. May‘s conditions also required her to report to probation as directed. Mary Marshall, appellant‘s probation officer, testified that Ms. May failed to report for her initial probation intake, and that despite numerous attempts to contact Ms. May, she never reported to probation at any time.
Ms. May testified that she had earned her GED, and that she had worked in the fast food and motel businesses. Ms. May acknowledged that she had an obligation to pay her fines and costs and to report to her probation officer, and she offered no excuse for her failure to comply.
In the present appeal, Ms. May‘s counsel accurately asserts that the sole adverse ruling was the trial court‘s decision to revoke appellant‘s probation. Appellant‘s counsel further asserts that there can be no meritorious challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting revocation. The State clearly demonstrated that Ms. May failed to pay fines and fees, and that she failed to report to probation as directed. Ms. May provided no reasonable excuse for her failure to comply with her conditions, and the trial court‘s decision to revoke her probation was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
Based on our review of the record and the brief presented, we conclude that there has been compliance with
Affirmed; motion granted.
PITTMAN and WOOD, JJ., agree.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
No response.
