Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 348
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-15-684
Opinion Delivered June 22, 2016
BRAELON MAXWELL
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. CR-2011-1194]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR.,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
CLIFF HOOFMAN, Judge
Appellant Braelon Jamar Maxwell appeals after the Crittenden County Circuit Court
revoked his probation and sentenced him to serve twenty-four months in the Arkansas
Department of Correction, followed by a twelve-month suspended imposition of sentence.
Appellant’s attorney has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant
to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2015) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that this appeal is wholly without merit. The motion is accompanied by an abstract
and addendum of the proceedings below, alleged to include all objections and motions
decided adversely to appellant, and a brief in which counsel explains why there is nothing in
the record that would support an appeal. The clerk of this court mailed a copy of counsel’s
motion and brief to appellant’s last-known address informing him of his right to file pro se
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 348
points for reversal; however, he has not done so.1 Consequently, the attorney general has not
filed a brief in response. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the revocation.
On August 20, 2012, appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a schedule VI controlled
substance with the purpose to deliver and was placed on probation for thirty-six months. On
January 14, 2014, the State filed a revocation petition alleging that appellant had violated the
terms and conditions of his probation. After a hearing on April 30, 2014, the trial court found
that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The trial court
sentenced appellant to serve two months in county jail and extended his original term of
probation by twenty-four months.
Subsequently, a second revocation petition was filed on February 17, 2015, alleging
that appellant had violated his probation by (1) failing to pay his fines, costs, and fees as
directed; (2) failing to report to probation as directed; (3) failing to pay his probation fees; (4)
failing to notify the sheriff and his probation officer of his current address and employment;
(5) departing from his approved residence without permission; and (6) failing to complete his
community service in lieu of fees.
At the revocation hearing, Amy Peyton, employed with the Crittenden County
Sheriff’s Department, testified that appellant had failed to pay any of his fines and costs as
ordered by the trial court. Additionally, Probation Officer Jennifer Miller testified that she
had supervised appellant since April 30, 2014. She explained that he had missed several
1
The packet was mailed to appellant by certified mail, and a return receipt indicates
that delivery was accepted.
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 348
appointments with her, attending only three out of ten visits. She further testified that
appellant was initially living locally with his grandmother. Although she subsequently was
given another address for him in Jonesboro as a reference, she indicated that she had not given
appellant permission to move and that he was not supposed to be living in Jonesboro. Finally,
she testified that appellant was behind on paying his probation fees and that he had failed to
complete his community service in lieu of paying his fees.
Appellant testified at the hearing on his own behalf. He testified that he had been
working in Jonesboro and admitted that he had moved to Jonesboro. However, he testified
that he had discussed his move with Officer Miller and that she had given him permission to
do so. Additionally, appellant explained that he had difficulty attending his probation
appointments due to his work schedule. He further acknowledged that he was aware of his
obligations, including paying his fines and costs.
After all evidence was presented, the trial court found that appellant had violated the
terms and conditions of his probation, specifically by failing to pay his fines and costs, failing
to report to his probation officer as directed, and failing to remain in the jurisdiction of the
court. He was sentenced to serve twenty-four months in the Arkansas Department of
Correction, followed by a twelve-month suspended imposition of sentence. This appeal
followed.
The only adverse ruling in this case was the revocation itself. A challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence may be raised for the first time in an appeal of a revocation in the
absence of a motion for a directed verdict. See Barbee v. State, 346 Ark. 185, 56 S.W.3d 370
3
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 348
(2001); Cotta v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 117. In a revocation proceeding, the trial court must
find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply
with a condition of his or her suspension or probation, and on appellate review, we do not
reverse the trial court’s decision unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
Flemons v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 131; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2015). Because
the burdens are different, evidence that is insufficient for a criminal conviction may be
sufficient for a probation or suspended-sentence revocation. Bradley v. State, 347 Ark. 518,
65 S.W.3d 874 (2002). Since determination of a preponderance of the evidence turns on
questions of credibility and weight to be given testimony, we defer to the trial court’s superior
position. Id. Furthermore, the State need only prove that the appellant committed one
violation of the conditions in order to revoke appellant’s sentence. Peals v. State, 2015 Ark.
App. 1, 453 S.W.3d 151.
In this case, the decision to revoke was not clearly against the preponderance of the
evidence. Appellant’s conditions of probation required that he pay all fines, court costs, and
restitution; cooperate with the probation officer and report as directed; and not move or
remain out of the jurisdiction of the court without permission. The State introduced
sufficient evidence through Ms. Peyton’s and Officer Miller’s testimony to support the trial
court’s finding that he violated the conditions of his probation, and we defer to the trial
court’s superior position regarding questions of credibility and the weight to be given
testimony. Bradley, supra. Thus, from our review of the record and the brief presented, we
find that counsel has complied with the requirements of Rule 4-3(k) and hold that there is
4
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 348
no merit to this appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the
revocation affirmed.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
GLADWIN, C.J., and BROWN, J., agree.
Tyler C. Ginn, for appellant.
No response.
5