Rayford Pryor, Jr. v. State of Arkansas , 2022 Ark. App. 504 ( 2022 )

Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 504ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-22-165
RAYFORD PRYOR, JR. Opinion Delivered December 14, 2022
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CROSS
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 19CR-19-169]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER W.
APPELLEE MORLEDGE, JUDGE
REVERSED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
The Cross County Circuit Court revoked the probation of Rayford Pryor, Jr., and
sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Pryor argues that the State failed to
prove that he had violated the conditions of his probation. We agree and reverse.
In May 2019, Pryor was placed on probation after pleading guilty to tampering with
physical evidence, a Class D felony. On November 4 , 2019, the State petitioned to revoke
Pryor’s probation, alleging nonpayment of fines, fees, and court costs; additional felony
charges acquired on September 13, 2019; and that he is engaging in or has engaged in
behavior that poses a threat to the community.
The circuit court held a revocation hearing on June 30, 2021.1 The only two witnesses
at the hearing were Officer Eric Moore of the Cross County Sheriff’s Department and
Sergeant Steven Hallmark of the Wynne Police Department. Officer Moore testified to an
incident that occurred at the home of Veronica Crumely on September 13, 2019. Officer
Moore testified that he found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in or near a shed
in the back of Crumely’s home where Pryor and others were located. Officer Moore did not
testify that Pryor had acquired additional felony charges or that Pryor was engaged in
behavior that poses a threat to the community.
Sergeant Hallmark testified that Pryor told him where the methamphetamine and
drug paraphernalia were located in the shed. On cross-examination, Sergeant Hallmark
testified that Pryor never admitted having the items in his possession and that he could not
state that the items belonged to Pryor. Sergeant Hallmark testified that he did not arrest
anyone that day. After hearing the testimony from the two law enforcement officers, the
court found that the allegations in the petition had been proved and sentenced Pryor to six
years’ imprisonment. This appeal followed, and Pryor challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the revocation of his probation.
A circuit court may revoke a defendant’s probation at any time prior to the expiration
of the period of probation if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant
1
The State filed an amended petition for revocation the day before this hearing, but
the circuit court ruled that it would only consider the 2019 petition at the hearing, and the
State would be limited to the allegations filed in that petition.
2
has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of the probation. Springs v. State, 2017 Ark.
App. 364, 525 S.W.3d 490; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2021). The State’s burden
of proof in a revocation proceeding is less than is required to convict in a criminal trial, and
evidence that is insufficient for a conviction may be sufficient for a revocation. Vangilder v.
State, 2018 Ark. App. 385, 555 S.W.3d 413. When the sufficiency of the evidence is
challenged on appeal from an order of revocation, the circuit court’s decision will not be
reversed unless its findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. McClain v.
State, 2016 Ark. App. 205, 489 S.W.3d 179. On appeal, Pryor argues that the bases relied
on by the circuit court to revoke his probation are unsupported by the evidence.
The State first alleged in its petition to revoke that Pryor had violated the terms of his
probation by nonpayment of fines. In its appellate brief, the State concedes that no evidence
was presented on this claim. Therefore, the revocation of Pryor’s probation on the basis of
his failure to pay fines, fees, and court costs, was not proved by a preponderance of the
evidence and cannot stand as a basis for Pryor’s revocation.
In its petition for revocation, the State also alleged that Pryor had violated the terms
of his probation by “[a]dditional [f]elony charges acquired on September 13, 2019.” Pryor
argues that the State failed to present evidence on this basis. We agree.
The two witnesses at the hearing, Officer Moore and Sergeant Hallmark, both
testified about their interaction with Pryor on September 13, 2019, but neither testified that
Pryor was arrested or that he acquired additional felony charges. On cross-examination,
Sergeant Hallmark testified that Pryor never admitted the contraband items belonged to
3
him. Further, Sergeant Hallmark testified that he could not say that the items found
belonged to Pryor. There was no testimony presented or introduced that any additional
felony charges were filed against Pryor as a result of his conduct on September 13, 2019.
Given the record before us, we hold that the circuit court’s finding of a violation on this
basis was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
The State’s final basis for revocation was that Pryor “is engaging in or has engaged in
behavior that poses a threat to the community.” The two witnesses at the probation-
revocation hearing testified about incidents involving the location and existence of possible
methamphetamine and possible drug paraphernalia; however, there was no testimony or
reference to prove any threat to the community. Because there was a lack of evidence that
Pryor’s behavior poses a threat to the community, we conclude that the circuit court’s finding
of a violation based on this alleged threat was clearly against the preponderance of the
evidence.
Consequently, we hold that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that Pryor had
violated the conditions of his probation as alleged by the State. We therefore reverse the
revocation of Pryor’s probation and the resulting sentence.
Reversed.
GLADWIN and MURPHY, JJ., agree.
Jerry D. Roberts, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4