Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Young v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II

December 11, 2019

Janet YOUNG, Appellant
v.
STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

Page 386

          APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 17CR-04-141], HONORABLE MICHAEL MEDLOCK, JUDGE

          Tyson K. Spradlin, for appellant.

         Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

         OPINION

         RITA W. GRUBER, Chief Judge

          Appellant Janet Young appeals the Crawford County Circuit Court’s order revoking her probation and sentencing her to two years’ imprisonment followed by eight years’ suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) on two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card and ten years’ suspended imposition of sentence for twelve counts of second-degree forgery. She argues that the circuit court erred in revoking her probation based on her being disabled and her inability to pay. We affirm.

          On December 20, 2004, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card and twelve counts of second-degree forgery. The circuit court sentenced her to ten years’ SIS for each offense, subject to terms and conditions, which included that she pay $54,052.66 in restitution. The court ordered the restitution to be paid in installments, with $10,000 due on the plea date and the remaining balance to be paid at the rate of $175 per month beginning January 15, 2005. The payments were to be made to the Crawford County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.

          The State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s suspended sentences on February 20, 2008, alleging that she had failed to make payments since September 17, 2007, in violation of the terms and conditions of her suspended sentences. The petition alleged that the balance due on January 19 was $38,277.66. On August 24, 2008, the court entered an order granting the State’s motion to withdraw the petition based on appellant resuming payments as ordered.

          The State filed a second petition to revoke on August 13, 2012, alleging nonpayment since January 24, 2012, with a remaining balance due of $31,267.66. A revocation hearing was held on July 16, 2015. The circuit court revoked appellant’s

Page 387

suspended sentences and sentenced her to ten years’ probation subject to terms and conditions, including her continued monthly restitution payments of $175 to begin on August 3, 2015. The sentencing order entered July 29, 2015, provided that the restitution due after appellant paid $2100 in court was $27,067.66. The terms and conditions required that she pay a $35 probation fee monthly beginning on August 1, 2015.

         A third revocation petition was filed by the State on October 7, 2015. The State alleged that appellant was in violation of the terms and conditions of her probation because she had failed to make any payments toward her restitution or fees since August 14, 2015, leaving an unpaid restitution balance of $26,882.66. Appellant was not served with the petition until July 5, 2018, and the revocation hearing took place on January 18, 2019.[1]

          Catherine Smith of the Crawford County Prosecutor’s Office testified about appellant’s restitution payment records. Smith stated that in 2017, appellant made six payments, each less than the $175 required payment, totaling $480. In 2018, appellant made five payments totaling $865— three for $175, one for $220, and one for $120. According to Smith, appellant had made one payment in 2019 at the time of the January hearing.

         Smith testified about a note in appellant’s record indicating appellant called the office on September 11, 2017, at which time appellant was informed that she was $7,480.66 behind in her payments. She testified that the note also stated that appellant was told by her attorney that she did not have to "pay all of it."[2] Smith said that after September 11, appellant did not make a payment until March 2018. On ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.