FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT NOS. 17CR-12-401,
17CR-14-25 HONORABLE MICHAEL MEDLOCK, JUDGE.
Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Gladwin and Vaught, JJ., agree.
M. GLOVER, JUDGE.
Justus appeals from the revocation of his suspended
imposition of sentence. For his sole point of appeal Justus
contends the State failed to meet its burden of proof because
there was no evidence of the terms and conditions he was
alleged to have violated. We affirm.
pleaded guilty to the underlying offenses of breaking or
entering and theft of property on April 24, 2013. On the
breaking-or-entering offense, a Class D felony, he received
sixty months' suspended imposition of sentence. On the
misdemeanor theft-of-property offense, he received twelve
months' suspended imposition of sentence.
State filed a petition to revoke on January 14, 2014, based
on Justus being charged with the commission of new offenses.
The petition was withdrawn, however, upon Justus pleading
guilty to the new offenses. On October 13, 2017, and amended
on January 31, 2018 (to change a date regarding restitution
payments and to add the new offense of first-degree battery),
the State filed the petition to revoke that was heard on
January 31, 2018, and resulted in the revocation Justus now
January 31, 2018 revocation hearing, Lisa Whetstine, a fine
and restitution coordinator with the prosecutor's office,
testified Justus was to begin paying $55 a month for
restitution on May 24, 2013. She explained his last payment
was made July 23, 2013.
White, Justus's ex-girlfriend, testified that on the
night of October 19, 2017, she went to meet him at Lee Creek
Park in Van Buren. She stated he did not "appear in the
right state of mind"; "he was acting a little bit
off." She said the meeting was not peaceful; they
started arguing; she was trying to get away from him; he
pulled a knife; and he cut her on her wrist. She acknowledged
she met him down at the riverfront looking for some drugs.
According to her, he cut her on both wrists, and it all
happened quickly. She identified State's exhibit 1 as a
photo showing the cut on her right hand. Felicia stated she
went to the hospital that night, got her mom to go with her,
and filed a police report and charges. She then testified,
"[T]hey stitched [her] up at the hospital"; her
wound has fully healed; and she has a two-inch scar from the
cut but suffers no further disability from the injury.
State rested and Justus moved to dismiss, arguing the State
had not made a prima facie case that he had violated the
terms and conditions of his suspended sentence. The trial
court denied the motion and found Justus had violated his
terms and conditions.
trial court accepted the prosecutor's recommendations and
sentenced Justus to six years in the Arkansas Department of
Correction, with four years suspended. This appeal followed.
sole point of appeal, Justus contends the trial court erred
in denying his motion to dismiss because the State did not
meet its burden of proving he had violated the terms and
conditions of his suspended sentence. More precisely, he now
contends on appeal the burden was not satisfied because the
State did not introduce the terms and conditions. The
argument was not properly preserved for appeal.
moving to dismiss, Justus argued: "Judge, we just move
to dismiss, argue the State's not made a prima facie case
that he's violated terms and conditions of his suspended
sentence." The trial court denied the motion. Although
Justus argues in this appeal that the State did not meet its
burden because it did not present evidence of the terms and
conditions of his suspended sentence, this is not what he
argued below. The argument he raises here is a procedural
argument rather than a sufficiency challenge, and it must be
raised at trial in order to preserve the ...