FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT
[NO. 16JCR-13-526], HONORABLE RANDY F. PHILHOURS, JUDGE
Goodwin Jones, for appellant.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Asst Atty
Gen., for appellee.
J. HARRISON, Judge
Hazelwood appeals the revocation of his suspended imposition
of sentence (SIS), arguing that the circuit court erred in
revoking his SIS because the State presented evidence that
was illegally obtained. We affirm.
July 2013, Hazelwood pled guilty to possession of a
controlled substance (methamphetamine) and was sentenced to
fifty-four months imprisonment and sixty months SIS. The
conditions of his SIS included the requirement that he not
commit a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. He was
also required to submit to a search of his "person,
place of residence, motor vehicle, or other property ... at
any time, day or night, with or without a search warrant,
whenever requested by any supervising officer or law
September 2016, the State petitioned to revoke Hazelwoods
SIS, alleging that he had failed to pay fines and costs as
directed and that on or about 5 August 2016, he had committed
the new offense of possession of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine). The circuit court convened a revocation
hearing on 11 June 2018. Jonesboro police officer Brian
Bailey testified that on 5 August 2016, he was on patrol and
observed Hazelwood sitting in a truck in front of his house.
Bailey checked his computer and saw that Hazelwood had an
outstanding warrant out of Jonesboro and that he was on
parole. Bailey approached Hazelwood and told him about the
outstanding warrant; Hazelwood responded that he had
"already appealed the warrant" but was unable to
find paperwork to verify that claim. Bailey contacted
dispatch, which confirmed the warrant was valid. Bailey asked
Hazelwood to exit the truck, handcuffed him, and searched
him. In Hazelwoods front right pocket, Bailey found a
cellophane bag containing suspected methamphetamine. Bailey
then placed Hazelwood under arrest. Agent Rick Guimond
testified as to the lab results on the substance that Bailey
found on Hazelwoods person; the lab confirmed it was .2834
grams of methamphetamine.
Hazelwood testified that he had never been served with a
warrant out of Jonesboro and that he did not have
methamphetamine on his person the day Bailey arrested him. He
acknowledged that he was on parole at the time. He also said
he had a zero balance on his fines and costs. He claimed that
Bailey harassed him; "Every
time I would see him he would pull me over."
the close of evidence, Hazelwood moved to dismiss, asserting
that "the warrant was not confirmed before his pat down
and search began, and we feel that violates his rights."
The circuit court found that Bailey had a right to initiate
the stop based on his knowledge of the warrant and that
Hazelwood was on parole, "which means that he is subject
to search at a different level than someone whos not on
parole." The court denied the motion to dismiss, found
that Hazelwood had violated the conditions of his SIS by
possessing methamphetamine, and sentenced him to six years
imprisonment. Hazelwood now appeals the
revoke probation or a suspended sentence, the burden is on
the State to prove the violation of a condition of the
probation or suspended sentence by a preponderance of the
evidence. Jones v. State, 355 Ark. 630, 144 S.W.3d
254 (2004). On appellate review, the circuit courts findings
will be upheld unless they are clearly against the
preponderance of the evidence. Id. Because the
burdens are different, evidence that is insufficient for a
criminal conviction may be sufficient for revocation of
probation or suspended sentence. Id. Thus, the
burden on the State is not as great in a revocation hearing.
Id. Furthermore, because the determination of a
preponderance of the evidence turns on questions of
credibility and weight to be given to the testimony, we defer
to the circuit courts superior position. Id.
Finally, only one violation is required to sustain a
revocation. Springs v. State, 2017 Ark.App. 364, 525
Hazelwood argues that the circuit court erred in revoking his
SIS because "the State presented evidence that was
illegally obtained in violation of [his] right to due
process." He asserts that the State did not produce
either the Jonesboro warrant or the search waiver on file as
part of his SIS, and while he acknowledges that the search
waiver requires him to "submit" to a search by any
law enforcement officer at any time, he argues he did not
"consent to the search, for purposes of any seized items
being admissible at any future trial or hearing."
Hazelwood contends that Bailey used the ...