APPEAL
FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NOS. 17CR-16-181,
17CR-16-588] HONORABLE MICHAEL MEDLOCK, JUDGE
Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
MIKE
MURPHY, JUDGE.
Appellant
Bobby John Lawson appeals the revocation of his suspended
imposition of sentence (SIS). On appeal, he argues that there
was insufficient evidence on which to revoke his SIS. We
affirm.
On
August 19, 2016, Lawson pleaded guilty to the offenses of
failure to appear, first-degree endangering the welfare of a
minor, and fleeing in a vehicle. Lawson was sentenced to
three years in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC)
plus an additional ten-year SIS contingent on his compliance
with certain conditions. A judgment was entered outlining the
agreed terms of Lawson's SIS with the specified
conditions. Lawson's signature is on this judgment.
The
State initially filed a petition to revoke Lawson's SIS
on January 25, 2018, asserting that Lawson committed the new
offenses of possession of methamphetamine and possession of
drug paraphernalia, and he was charged as a habitual
offender. The State amended its petition on February 5, to
restate the prior allegations and to allege additional
criminal acts by Lawson that occurred on January 13:
attempted capital murder, criminal mischief, fleeing in a
vehicle, driving while license suspended or revoked, and
reckless driving.
The
petition was heard on April 4, 2018. James Polk testified to
the events that occurred on January 13, 2018. While on patrol
for the Crawford County Sheriff's Department, Polk
attempted to stop a vehicle that was crossing the double
yellow line. He explained that it appeared as though the
driver of the vehicle was going to pull over but then
accelerated quickly into the city limits of Alma. Polk's
patrol truck was clearly marked as a law-enforcement vehicle.
He continued to pursue the vehicle until they drove on to a
dead-end road. Polk testified that the road ended at a cattle
gate, so he thought the vehicle was going to stop, but the
driver proceeded to crash through the gate, strike multiple
animals, and spin the car around. Polk's truck stopped
just in front of the vehicle, and he identified the driver as
Lawson because he had dealt with him numerous times in the
past. Lawson did not comply with Polk's directive to get
out of his vehicle. Instead, Lawson struck Polk's
vehicle, came close to hitting Polk, and then backed up and
sped away. The Alma Police Department was unsuccessful in
apprehending Lawson that day, but he was arrested
approximately a week later on an absconder warrant.
At the
conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court found by a
preponderance of the evidence that Lawson had violated the
terms and conditions of his SIS. He was sentenced to sixteen
years' incarceration in the ADC. He now timely appeals.
Pursuant
to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2015),
a circuit court may revoke a defendant's probation or
suspension at any time prior to the expiration of the period
of probation or suspension if the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has
inexcusably failed to comply with a term or condition of the
probation or suspension. The burden is on the State to prove
a violation of a term or condition by a preponderance of the
evidence. Baker v. State, 2016 Ark.App. 468, at 3-4.
On appeal, the circuit court's findings will be upheld
unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the
evidence. Id. Because a determination of the
preponderance of the evidence turns heavily on questions of
credibility and weight to be given to the testimony, the
appellate courts defer to the circuit court's superior
position in this regard. Id. Only one violation of
the conditions of probation must be proved to support a
revocation. Id. Evidence that is insufficient for a
criminal conviction may be sufficient for a revocation
proceeding because the burdens of proof are different.
Id.
Here,
Lawson asserts on appeal that the State neither entered into
evidence the actual SIS document nor asked the circuit court
to take judicial notice of the original order placing him on
SIS. As such, Lawson argues that there is insufficient proof
that he was on a term of suspension when these alleged
violations occurred.[1] Lawson failed to raise this objection
below or obtain a ruling on it.
We have
long held that we will not address such an argument when it
is raised for the first time on appeal. See,
e.g., Baker, 2016 Ark.App. 468. In
Baker, we addressed this issue:
This court has held, specifically with regard to revocation
proceedings, that an argument that the State failed to
introduce a copy of the terms and conditions of a suspended
sentence is a procedural objection that must be raised before
the circuit court. Myers v. State, 2014 Ark.App.
720, at 3, 451 S.W.3d 588, 590; Cotta v. State, 2013
Ark.App. 117; Whitener v. State, 96 Ark.App. 354,
241 S.W.3d 779 (2006). Appellant cites no authority for the
proposition that the State's failure to specifically ask
the trial court to take judicial notice of the SIS judgment
already in the record constitutes a failure of proof and
equates to a sufficiency-of-the-evidence problem. Our courts
do not consider an argument when the appellant presents no
citation to authority or convincing argument in its support
and ...