Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 454
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-13-62
Opinion Delivered August 28, 2013
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JOSE RODRIGUEZ [NO. CR 2005-196]
APPELLANT
V. HONORABLE DAVID GOODSON,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge
Appellant Jose Rodriguez argues that the circuit court erred by overruling his
evidentiary objections and, therefore, in finding that there was sufficient evidence that he
inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his probation. We find no error and
affirm.
On January 8, 2010, Rodriguez pled guilty to the charge of possession of a
controlled substance with intent to deliver and received a sentence of thirty-six months in
the Arkansas Department of Correction, followed by thirty-six months’ suspended
imposition of sentence subject to written conditions. On July 11, 2012, the State filed a
petition for revocation of suspension alleging that Rodriguez had violated the terms and
conditions of his suspended sentence by failing to pay fines, costs, and fees as directed;
1
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 454
failing to notify the sheriff of current address and employment; and selling marijuana. After
a revocation hearing on October 23, 2012, the circuit court found by a preponderance of
the evidence that Rodriguez had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence and
sentenced him to seven years in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
A circuit court may revoke a defendant’s suspension if it finds by a preponderance
of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of
the suspension. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d) (Repl. 2006). In revocation proceedings,
the State has the burden of proving a violation of a condition of probation or suspension
by a preponderance of the evidence, and we will not reverse a circuit court’s decision to
revoke unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Bradley v. State, 347
Ark. 518, 65 S.W.3d 874 (2002).
At the conclusion of Rodriguez’s revocation hearing, the circuit court specifically
found that Rodriguez had violated the conditions of his suspension by selling marijuana
and by failing to make any payment toward his outstanding fees and costs in 2011 or 2012.
Rodriguez argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in allowing certain testimony
related to the allegations of him selling marijuana. However, revocation is proper when
only one ground is proven. Costes v. State, 103 Ark. App. 171, 287 S.W.3d 639 (2008).
Because only one violation of the conditions of suspension needs to be proven to support
the revocation, and the circuit court found Rodriguez did not pay his fines, we affirm on
this basis and find it unnecessary to address his arguments regarding the other violation
alleged by the State.
Affirmed.
2
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 454
GLOVER and BROWN, JJ., agree.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3