Varner v. State

Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 373
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-15-930
Opinion Delivered August 31, 2016
JAMES ROBERT VARNER APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
GREENWOOD DISTRICT
V. [NO. G-CR-07-40B]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant James Varner pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver,
possession of Darvocet, and possession of drug paraphernalia, in September 2007. He was
sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, followed by eight years’ suspended imposition of
sentence (SIS). The State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s SIS on July 30, 2015, alleging
that appellant had violated his conditions by committing two counts of possession of drug
paraphernalia, committing theft by receiving, and failing to pay his public defender fee as
ordered. The revocation hearing took place on September 23, 2015. The court found that
appellant had violated the terms of his SIS and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment
followed by an additional four years’ SIS. Appellant argues on appeal that the evidence was
insufficient to support the revocation. More specifically, appellant contends that the State
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 373
failed to introduce specific evidence that he knew or should have known about the drug
paraphernalia or that the motorcycle had been stolen. We affirm.
To revoke a suspended sentence, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant inexcusably violated a condition of the suspension.1 The State
bears the burden of proof, but it need only prove that the defendant committed one violation
in order to sustain the revocation.2 When a trial court bases its decision on alternate,
independent grounds, and the appellant challenges only one of those grounds, we will affirm
without addressing the merits of either.3
Here, the trial court based its decision to revoke appellant’s SIS on the three grounds
alleged in the State’s petition. However, appellant challenges only the findings that he was
in possession of drug paraphernalia and a stolen motorcycle. Because appellant failed to
challenge all of the trial court’s grounds for revocation, we must affirm.4
Affirmed.
GLADWIN, C.J., and HOOFMAN, J., agree.
Aubrey L. Barr, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Jake H. Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
1
Bedford v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 239.
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
Id.
2