Appellant Carl Rudd appeals the J revocation of his suspended sentence by the Crawford County Circuit Court, for which he was sentenced to ten years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant argues on appeal that (1) the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to revoke his suspended sentence due to the improper passage of a constitutional amendment, and (2) there was insufficient evidence upon which to support revocation. We disagree and affirm.
Rudd pleaded nolo contendere to conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine and agreed to ten years of suspended imposition of sentence with one year of supervised probation and payment of a $20 monthly probation fee. As part of his agreed conditions, Rudd was required to attend drug counseling that would be monitored by the adult probation office by weekly repоrts to his probation officer, his driver’s license was suspended for six months, and he was also subject to the condition of not violating any law punishable by imprisonment. The judgment and commitment order was filed of record on September 22, 2000. On Jаnuary 5, 2001, the State petitioned to revoke Rudd’s suspended sentence, alleging that Rudd had failed to report to the adult probation office as required, had failed to pay his probation fees, and had committed a new оffense, terroristic threatening, on or about November 21, 2000. After a hearing, the trial court found that appellant failed to comply with the orders, specifically regarding drug rehabilitation, performing community service, and violating the law by forcibly taking money from the victim who was allegedly the subject of terroristic threatening.
We consider sufficiency of the evidence before addressing other alleged trial errors. Williams v. State,
We address the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the State’s petition for revocation, contrary to the State’s assertion that this issue is not рreserved for appellate review. The State argues that because Rudd failed to move for directed verdict in compliance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1, we cannot do so. We disagree. Our supreme court recendy decided in Barbee v. State,
To revoke probation or a suspension, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably violated a condition of that probation or suspension. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309 (Rеpl. 1997); Brandon v. State,
With these enunciated rules to guide our review, we examine the evidence presented against appellant Rudd at the revocation hearing. Appellant’s probation officer, Jeffrеy David Landers, testified that appellant was supposed to report to him on a weekly basis but that appellant reported only twice between pronouncement of his sentence to probation, Septembеr 11, 2000, and the date of the revocation hearing, January 22, 2001. Mr. Landers further testified the appellant had failed to pay his probation fees as ordered.
The alleged victim of the terroristic threat testified that appellаnt forcibly took $60 from her and asked her what she was going to do about it. A few days later, the victim saw appellant again and the two got into an argument, yelling at one another over the money, and appellant threatenеd to kill her.
Appellant testified in his own defense. Appellant did not contest that he had failed to report to his probation officer as required or that he had failed to pay his probation fees; he admitted as much. Apрellant contested that he committed terroristic threatening. When appellant testified, he stated that he did take the victim’s $60 and spent it under the pretext that he was going to buy her marijuana with it. Appellant stated that they saw each other again about five days later and argued about the money but that he had not ever threatened to kill her. The trial court announced that it was revoking appellant’s probation at the conclusion of the hearing.
Appellant bases his argument on the sufficiency of the evidence as to the proof that he committed terroristic threatening. However, the State need prove only one violation of a condition of probation, which it accomplished and which was not contested but admitted. See Ramsey v. State,
Appellant’s alternative argument on aрpeal is that the trial court lacked jurisdiction 1 to enter a sentence on his plea of nolo contendere to conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine, the underlying offense for his suspended sentence аnd probation that was later revoked. Appellant bases this argument on his assertion that Amendment 21 to the Arkansas Constitution was not adopted in compliance with constitutional requirements, and thus the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to prosecute him, as a defendant, upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney, but could have only proceeded by a grand-jury indictment. Thus, appellant argues, because he was charged by information, an invalid means to be charged, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him on his nolo contendere plea and, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to revoke any probation based upon that conviction.
The State counters by pointing out that if appellant’s argument is that Amendment 21 is unconstitutional, then his argument is barred for failure to raise it to the trial court. With this, we agree. See, e.g., Woods v. State,
While it is true, as a general proposition, that the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal, see Pike v. State,
Moreover, even if the validity of Amendmеnt 21 were properly before us, appellant is incorrect in his argument that it was not validly adopted. Section 22 of Article 19 of the Arkansas Constitution provides the manner in which proposals to amend the Constitution may be submitted tо the people by the General Assembly. It reads as follows:
Sec. 22. Either branch of the General Assembly at a regular session thereof may propose amendments to this Constitution, and, if the same be agreed to by a majority of аll members elected to each house, such proposed amendments shall be entered on the journals with the yeas and nays, and published in at least one newspaper in each county, where a newspaper is рublished, for six months immediately preceding the next general election for Senators and Representatives, at which time the same shall be submitted to the electors of the State for approval or rejection; and if a majority of the electors voting at such election adopt such amendments the same shall become a part of this Constitution; but no more than three amendments shall be proposed or submitted at the same time. They shall bе so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amendment separately.
See also McCuen v. Harris,
Amendment 21 was proposed in the 1935 session of the General Assembly, which ran from January 14, 1935 through March 14, 1935, as noted in the 1935 edition of the Journal of the House of Representatives. We are permitted to take judicial notice of such Journals. See McAdams v. Henley,
Appellant asserts that the adoption of this constitutional amendment did not occur until March 20, 1935, outside the session dates, rendering it void. See id. at 995. We disagree because March 20 was the date that House Joint Resolution Number 18 was reported correctly enrolled and was delivered to the governor. See id. at 1440 and 1456. The governor’s approval is not necessary for a constitutional amendment to be submitted to the citizenry for approval. See Coulter v. Dodge,
Affirmed.
Notes
Although appellant characterizes the trial court proceeding in his original prosecutiоn, which was commenced by the prosecutor’s information, as one without jurisdiction, he does not contend that the Crawford County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions. Because of our disposition of this cаse, it makes no difference whether the issue should more accurately be characterized as an improper exercise of jurisdiction rather than a lack of jurisdiction, so we also will refer to the issue as one pertaining to a lack of jurisdiction.