Jimmie Lee Walls v. State of Arkansas , 2023 Ark. App. 49 ( 2023 )

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 49ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-22-434
JIMMIE LEE WALLS Opinion Delivered February 8, 2023
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
APPELLANT [NO. 35CR-19-682]
V. HONORABLE ALEX GUYNN, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; REMANDED TO
STATE OF ARKANSAS CORRECT SENTENCING ORDER
APPELLEE
CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge
Jimmie Lee Walls appeals an order of the Jefferson County Circuit Court revoking
his suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) and sentencing him to six years in the Arkansas
Department of Correction. On appeal, Walls argues that there was insufficient evidence to
support the revocation decision. We find no error and affirm the revocation of Walls’s SIS;
however, we remand in order to correct an error on the sentencing order.
In July 2020, Walls entered a no-contest plea to one count of terroristic threatening,
a Class D felony, in case No. 35CR-19-682 and was sentenced to twenty-four months’ SIS.
His SIS required that he obey all federal and state laws and not own or possess any type of
firearm. In November 2020, the State filed a petition to revoke Walls’s SIS, alleging that he
had committed the offenses of first-degree domestic battery and possession of a firearm by
certain persons.
At the revocation hearing, the State first introduced Walls’s sentencing order and the
conditions of his SIS. The State then called Detective Deshaun Bennett of the Pine Bluff
Police Department, who testified that in August 2020, he responded to a call that someone
had been shot at 4413 West Fifth Avenue. When Bennett arrived at the scene, he saw the
victim, Perry Burris––Walls’s brother––being loaded onto a gurney with what appeared to
be gunshot wounds to his left arm and shoulder. Bennett took a statement from Burris in
which he identified Walls as the shooter. Other witnesses present at the scene gave
statements to Bennett that were consistent with the story that Burris had related.
The State then called Burris to testify. Burris confirmed that he lived at 4413 West
Fifth Avenue and that Walls is his brother. He further testified that on the day of the
shooting, he and about seven or eight other people, including Walls, had been drinking
when “all of a sudden [he] got popped.” Then, contrary to his statement to Bennett on the
day of the incident, Burris testified on direct examination that he was unaware of Walls’s
whereabouts that day and that Walls had been “all over the place.” Burris recalled telling the
detective that he had been shot but testified he could not remember telling the detective
who shot him.
At that point, the State played a video of a statement that Burris gave Detective
Bennett in the hospital following the shooting to “help [him] remember what [he] said that
day.” In the video, Burris told Bennett that he and his brother, Walls, lived together and
2
that a friend had come over to drink with them. Burris said that Walls exchanged words with
the friend, and when Burris rebuked him, “then all of a sudden, pow.” Burris also told
Bennett that he saw his brother shoot him with a .38-caliber handgun with tape on the
handle. When Bennett asked if he remembered anything else, Burris said Walls was mad.
Bennett asked, “You said he is your brother?” Burris confirmed, “My baby brother, Jimmie
Lee Walls. Just got out of jail for terroristic threatening.”
When Burris’s live testimony resumed, he continued to maintain that he did not
know who shot him. He denied the possibility that it could be Walls because he stated he
would not have let Walls bring a gun inside the house. Also contrary to his taped statement
to Bennett, Burris denied during his direct examination that he had seen a gun. When asked
about the specific description of the gun Burris had provided to Bennett in the video, he
explained that “the tape on the handle, I was seeing, I don’t know, I was drinking.”
The court then asked Burris whether it had been his voice on the recording that had
just been played during his direct examination. Burris said it didn’t sound like his voice but
he guessed it was. The court reminded Burris that he had been very detailed in his statement
to Bennett regarding his description of the gun. Burris replied, “[A]s far as me saying that I
seen him shoot me, when I got hit, I ran, I ducked . . . and had Kim to call the ambulance.”
The court asked if he was trying to save his brother, and Burris denied that he was.
The State then recalled Bennett, who identified both his voice and Burris’s voice on
the video statement that he recorded at the hospital. He also confirmed that Burris had
identified his brother, Walls, as the person who shot him. At the conclusion of the hearing,
3
the court found that it was “clear [that Walls] violated the terms and conditions of [his]
probation,” stating, “You shot your brother.” The court then sentenced him to six years in
the Arkansas Department of Correction.
On appeal, Walls argues that the “evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that [he] shot his brother.” Our standard of review in revocation proceedings, however, is
not whether the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, to revoke a
suspended sentence, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of the suspension. Ark. Code
Ann. § 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2021). We do not reverse a circuit court’s decision to revoke
unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Garrin v. State, 2022 Ark. App.
342, 652 S.W.3d 608. Because the burdens of proof are different, evidence that is
insufficient for a criminal conviction may be sufficient for a revocation. Id. Since
determinations of a preponderance of the evidence turn on questions of credibility and
weight to be given testimony, we defer to the circuit court’s superior position. Justice v. State,
2023 Ark. App. 14.
The State’s revocation petition alleged that Walls had committed the offense of first-
degree domestic battery. A person commits the offense of first-degree domestic battery if with
the purpose of causing physical injury to a household member or family member, he causes
physical injury to a family or household member by means of a firearm. Ark. Code Ann. §
5-26-303(a)(6) (Supp. 2021).
4
Here, there was evidence before the court that (1) Burris and Walls are siblings; (2)
Burris said in his videotaped statement, played without objection during the revocation
hearing, that Walls shot Burris with a .38-caliber handgun; and (3) Burris clearly sustained a
physical injury as a result of the gunshot. Therefore, the State proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that Walls caused physical injury to a family or household member by means
of a firearm.
As to Walls’s intent to cause physical injury, this court has frequently stated that
intent or state of mind is seldom capable of proof by direct evidence and must usually be
inferred from the circumstances of the crime. Hughes v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 378, 467
S.W.3d 170; Taylor v. State, 77 Ark. App. 144, 72 S.W.3d 882 (2002). Because of the
difficulty in ascertaining a defendant’s intent or state of mind, a presumption exists that a
person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts. Benton v. State, 2020 Ark.
App. 223, 599 S.W.3d 353. Here, the evidence showed that Walls became angry with his
brother and then pointed a gun at him, shooting him twice. This is sufficient, especially
given the lesser standard of proof in a revocation proceeding, to prove Walls’s intent to cause
injury. See Martinez v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 187, 545 S.W.3d 264 (finding sufficient evidence
of intent when defendant fired his weapon repeatedly and shot one victim in the head).
Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in finding the evidence sufficient
to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Walls committed first-degree battery, and
we affirm the revocation of the SIS.
5
We must remand this case, however, for correction of a scrivener’s error in the circuit
court’s sentencing order. The order in case No. 35CR-19-682, entered on December 20,
2021, following the revocation hearing, indicates that Walls was found guilty by the court of
one count of terroristic threatening, a Class D felony, and sentenced by the court to seventy-
two months in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The box indicating whether the
matter was a “Probation/SIS Revocation,” however, is checked no. Obviously, this
proceeding was a revocation of Walls’s previously imposed SIS in case No. 35CR-19-682. We
therefore affirm but remand to the circuit court to correct the sentencing order. See, e.g.,
Cossey v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 47.
Affirmed; remanded to correct sentencing order.
HARRISON, C.J., and VIRDEN, J., agree.
Potts Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
6