Henderson v. State ( 2017 )

Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 486
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-17-154
Opinion Delivered September 27, 2017
SHAMARIUS HENDERSON APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 30CR-10-32]
V.
HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge
Appellant, Shamarius Henderson, appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm.
In 2010, Henderson pled guilty in the Hot Spring County Circuit Court to theft of
property valued at $2,500 or more and first-degree criminal mischief. He was sentenced to
sixty months’ probation, fined $1,000, ordered to pay $2,362.39 in restitution, and ordered to
pay court costs and fees. His probation was conditioned on several requirements, including
(1) that he report as directed to his probation officer, (2) that he be gainfully employed and
report any changes in his address or employment status, (3) that he pay monthly supervision
fees to the Arkansas Department of Community Correction (ADC), and (4) that he pay costs
and fines totaling $1,150.
On January 29, 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke Henderson’s probation,
alleging that he had violated the terms and conditions of probation by failing to report to his
probation officer on several occasions, failing to provide proof of employment or a valid
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 486
address, failing to pay his supervision fees as required, and failing to make any payments on
his fines, fees, and costs. On August 30, 2016, the State filed an amended petition to revoke,
alleging violation of the same four conditions and adding allegations that Henderson had not
appeared in court as ordered, had continued violating the requirement that he report to his
probation officer, and had not made any payments on his fine, fees, and costs. After a hearing,
the court revoked Henderson’s probation and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment
in the ADC.
In probation-revocation proceedings, the State has the burden of proving that a
probationer violated the terms of his or her probation, as alleged in the revocation petition,
by a preponderance of the evidence, and this court will not reverse the trial court’s decision to
revoke probation unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Stinnett v. State,
63 Ark. App. 72, 973 S.W.2d 826 (1998). The State need show that the appellant committed
only one violation in order to sustain a revocation. See Brock v. State, 70 Ark. App. 107, 14
S.W.3d 908 (2000).
On appeal, Henderson argues that the court erred in finding that he had failed to
provide proof of employment and failed to provide a valid employment address because, he
claims, the conditions of his probation did not require him to do those things. He is correct—
the terms and conditions of his probation did not include those specific provisions. However,
his appeal has no merit because there were other independent grounds on which the court
revoked his probation. Henderson acknowledges that the State need prove only one violation
in order to support revocation but argues that the court sentenced him to the maximum period
of incarceration available for each offense, indicating that the sentence was based on the
2
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 486
aggregate impact of multiple violations taken together. We disagree. Once a single violation
was proved, the trial court was authorized to impose any sentence that may have originally
been imposed for the offense of which he was found guilty. Cox v. State, 365 Ark. 358, 229
S.W.3d 883 (2006). The court could have imposed the same sentence for any of the remaining
three violations that Henderson does not challenge on appeal.
Affirmed.
ABRAMSON and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Robinson & Zakrzewski P.A., by: Luke Zakrzewski, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3