Bedford v. State

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 239
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-13-879
Opinion Delivered April 23, 2014
TERESA BEDFORD
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. CR-2004-140]
HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR.,
STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Teresa Bedford pled no contest to a charge of second-degree forgery, a Class C felony,
in 2004. She was sentenced as a habitual offender to a term of three years in the Arkansas
Department of Correction, followed by the suspended imposition of any additional sentence
for a period of ten years. In 2012, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s suspension,
alleging that she had violated its conditions by, inter alia, committing another act of forgery
and failing to pay court-ordered costs and fees. After a hearing in 2013, the trial court found
that appellant had inexcusably violated both of those conditions, revoked her suspension, and
sentenced her to seven years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding that she committed a new act of forgery.
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. Murry v. State,
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 239
2010 Ark. App. 782. The State bears the burden of proof, but it need only prove that the
defendant committed one violation in order to sustain the revocation. Id. 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. Fuson v. State, 2011
Ark. 374, 383 S.W.3d 848; Camp v. State, 66 Ark. App. 134, 991 S.W.2d 611 (1999).
Here, the trial court expressly based its decision to revoke appellant’s suspension on
two independent grounds: that appellant committed forgery and that she failed to pay costs
and fees as previously ordered. On appeal, appellant challenges only the finding that she
committed forgery. Because appellant failed to challenge the trial court’s alternative ground
for revocation, we must affirm. See Bovee v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 158; Murry, supra.
Affirmed.
HARRISON and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
2