FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NOS. 17CR-12-313 AND
17CR-16-551], HONORABLE MICHAEL MEDLOCK, JUDGE
Law Firm, P.A., Jacksonville, by: John Ogles, for appellant.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Michael L. Yarbrough, Asst Atty
Gen., for appellee.
D. VAUGHT, Judge
Williams appeals the Crawford County Circuit Courts order
revoking his probation and sentencing him to seven years
imprisonment. He argues that the State failed to prove that
his failure to pay restitution was willful. We affirm.
September 14, 2012, Williams pled guilty to forgery in the
second degree and was sentenced to thirty-six months
probation, fines of $3,500, court costs, and restitution in
the amount of $3,012.15. The court ordered Williams to pay
his fines, court costs, and restitution in monthly
installments of $55 beginning in October
2012. After a series of revocation proceedings, new criminal
charges, and periods of incarceration, the State filed two
separate petitions to revoke on August 2 and 29, 2018,
alleging that Williams had failed to pay restitution as
Williamss revocation hearing on January 4, 2019, the State
presented testimony that Williams still owed restitution in
the amount of $2,547.14, meaning that almost seven years
after first being ordered to pay restitution, he had paid
only about one-third of the amount owed. The State introduced
into evidence a payment ledger showing payments made only in
October and December 2017 and in January and February 2018.
Williams testified that he had been told he could resume
making payments when he left a halfway house where he lived
from June to September 2017. In June 2017, Williams worked
for W & W Automotive, bringing home $450 a week. Starting in
September 2017, Williams lived with his father and his wife,
so he did not have to pay rent, but he had normal living
expenses, such as wood for heat, electricity, cable, and a
car payment. At the hearing, Williams testified that he had
lost his job near the beginning of April 2018 but had made
arrangements to get it back.
court ruled that Williams had sufficient income and more than
enough expendable money to pay more restitution than he had
paid. Consequently, it revoked his probation and sentenced
him to seven years imprisonment in the Arkansas Department
support revocation of a defendants probation, the State must
prove a violation of the conditions of probation by a
preponderance of the evidence. Cox v. State, 2017
Ark.App. 73, at 2, 2017 WL 435754. However, the State need
only prove a defendant violated one probationary condition in
order for a circuit court to revoke probation. Id.
The appellate court will not reverse the circuit courts
decision to revoke unless it is clearly erroneous or clearly
against the preponderance of the evidence. Ferguson v.
State, 2016 Ark.App. 4, at 3, 479 S.W.3d 588, 590.
"Determining whether a preponderance of the evidence
exists turns on questions of credibility and the weight to be
given to the testimony." Siddiq v. State, 2016
Ark.App. 422, at 2, 502 S.W.3d 537, 539. This court defers to
the circuit courts determinations regarding witness
credibility and the weight to be given to testimony.
Id., at 4, 502 S.W.3d at 540.
circuit court may revoke probation if the defendant has not
made a good-faith effort to make the court-ordered payments.
Rhoades v. State, 2010 Ark.App. 730, at 3, 379
S.W.3d 659, 661. While the State has the burden of proving
that the failure to pay is inexcusable, once the State has
introduced evidence of nonpayment, the burden of going
forward shifts to the defendant to offer some reasonable
excuse for the failure to pay. Id. at 3, 379 S.W.3d
at 661. If the probationer asserts an inability to pay and
provides evidence demonstrating that inability, then the
State must demonstrate that the probationer did not make a
good-faith effort to pay. Peals v. State, 2015
Ark.App. 1, at 4, 453 S.W.3d 151, 154. Despite the shifting
of the burden of production, the State shoulders the ultimate
burden of proving that the probationers failure to pay was
inexcusable. Id. at 4, 453 S.W.3d at 154.
appeal, Williams does not dispute that he failed to make
payments as required by the conditions of his probation. He
argues that the State did not prove that his failure to pay
was willful. In response, the State argues that even if the
court credited Williamss contention that he had been told he
did not have to ...