FROM THE POINSETT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 56CR-13-198]
HONORABLE BARBARA HALSEY, JUDGE
Goodwin Jones, for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Amanda Jegley, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge
and Hixson, JJ., agree.
Kevin Dunhoo appeals the June 12, 2017 sentencing order of
the Poinsett County Circuit Court that revoked his probation.
Appellant was charged with committing sexual indecency with a
child, and he was placed on a six-year term of probation
commencing in July 2013 during which he agreed to abide by
certain conditions. The State filed a petition to revoke his
probation in March 2017, alleging that appellant had violated
conditions concerning (1) failing to notify law enforcement
of any change of address and staying away from his residence
without prior approval of law enforcement, (2) being
untruthful with his probation officer about his internet and
phone activities, and (3) failing to pay fines and fees as
directed. At the conclusion of the probation-revocation
hearing in June 2017, the trial court found that appellant
had violated his conditions, revoked his probation, and
sentenced him to 68 months in prison. This appeal followed.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in revoking his
probation because "the underlying conditions were not
present in the original order and the appellant had not
willfully left his fines and fees unpaid." We affirm.
to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-308(d) (Repl. 2016),
a trial court may revoke a defendant's probation at any
time prior to the expiration of the period of probation if
the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a term or
condition of his probation. The State has the burden of
proving that a condition of probation was violated. Jones
v. State, 2013 Ark.App. 466. The State need only show
that the defendant committed one violation in order to
sustain a revocation. Banks v. State, 2014 Ark.App.
639. On appellate review, the trial court's findings are
upheld unless they are clearly against the preponderance of
the evidence. Stultz v. State, 92 Ark.App. 204, 212
S.W.3d 42 (2005). The appellate courts defer to the trial
court's superior position to determine credibility and
the weight to be accorded testimony. Baney v. State,
2017 Ark.App. 20, 510 S.W.3d 799.
Condition 13 of appellant's conditions of probation
required the following of appellant:
You must be gainfully employed or enrolled as a student at
all times, pay your share of household expenses, support your
legal dependents and pay all court ordered child support.
You must notify your supervising officer in advance of
any change in your address, employment, education,
telephone number or family status. Where circumstances
make it impossible to give advance notice, you must give
notice as soon as possible. Prior approval from a supervising
office is required for you to change or stay away from your
place of residence or to quit your employment. (Emphasis
State alleged in its revocation petition that appellant
"stayed away from his approved address without notifying
his officer and without changing his address pursuant to his
time appellant was placed on probation, the address he listed
was his grandmother's. Probation Officer Lakieva Meadows
began supervising appellant in May 2016. She testified that
she went to appellant's grandmother's house for a
home visit,  and appellant's grandmother told her
that she "put him out, " he was "no longer
staying there, " and "he couldn't stay there
because he refused to pay bills." When Meadows made
contact with appellant to ask him about this, he told her
that he was going back to his grandmother's, but she
learned that he subsequently registered the Little Rock
address where he was staying, 2811 South Battery Street.
Meadows said that appellant had not reported this change to
her until she asked him about it.
from a sheriff's office employee evidenced that appellant
failed to pay toward his fines, fees, and costs and was
behind. Meadows also provided testimony to show that
appellant had been contacting underage females and sending
photographs of his genitals to them.
testified that he was kicked out of his grandmother's
house in December 2016. Appellant stated that he moved in
with Shelly Williams in Little Rock. Appellant described
Williams as a person whom his mother had dated and who looked
after him like a "guardian." Appellant admitted
that he did not report being kicked out of his
grandmother's home before the probation officer visited
his grandmother's house. Appellant testified that he had
sporadically worked since 2013 but had recently obtained
three jobs so that he could now pay what he owed, even though
he had only made "small payments here and there" in
the past. Appellant admitted that he had sent messages to
girls but that this was before he learned that they were
trial court found appellant to be in violation of the
conditions of his probation. The ...