Belair v. State

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 453ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-13-1092
Opinion Delivered September 10, 2014
THOMAS BELAIR
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. CR-2010-1072]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE DAVID GOODSON,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
BILL H. WALMSLEY, Judge
Appellant Thomas Belair appeals from the revocation of his probation. He argues that
the trial court erred in overruling his confrontation-clause objection. We affirm.
On October 12, 2010, appellant pled guilty to breaking or entering and was sentenced
to six years’ probation. On August 3, 2012, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s
probation, alleging that he had committed the following violations: (1) failure to pay fines,
restitution, costs, and fees as directed; (2) failure to report to probation as directed; (3) failure
to pay probation fees; (4) failure to notify the sheriff and probation of his current address and
employment; (5) possession and use of alcohol; (6) driving while intoxicated; (7) possession
and use of cocaine; (8) driving with no liability insurance; (9) driving with no driver’s license;
(10) no vehicle license.
The revocation hearing was held on September 9, 2013. Amy Peyton from the
Crittenden County Sheriff’s Department testified that appellant had been assessed a fine of
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 453$250 and costs of $770. He had been scheduled to pay $50 monthly beginning December
12, 2010; however, Peyton had not received any payments toward satisfaction of the fine or
costs. Peyton testified that appellant had not contacted her to indicate why he was not
paying, when he would pay, where he was working, or where he was living.
Constance Brown, of the Department of Community Correction, testified that she
prepared a violation report on August 1, 2012, due to new charges against appellant in
Tennessee. Brown testified that appellant’s probation had been previously transferred to
Tennessee for supervision, and she had received information from Tennessee that he was in
violation of the conditions of the transfer. At this point, appellant objected based on the
confrontation clause, arguing that he had the right to confront witnesses pertaining to this
testimony. The objection was overruled.
Appellant moved for a directed verdict on the violations numbered two through ten
in the petition, arguing that there was no evidence as to those allegations. The motion was
granted. The trial court then revoked appellant’s probation upon finding that he had failed
to pay fines, costs, and fees as ordered by the court. Appellant was sentenced to two years’
imprisonment, and he has now appealed.
Appellant argues that it was error for the trial court to overrule his objection and deny
him the right to confront witnesses. The State contends that any error committed by the trial
court in overruling appellant’s objection was harmless and provides no basis for reversal of the
revocation. We agree. The trial court did not rely on anything recounted in Brown’s
testimony to revoke appellant’s probation. Revocation was based solely on the failure to pay
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 453fines and costs, and this evidence was not objected to below nor challenged on appeal. The
State need prove only one violation of the conditions of probation to sustain a revocation.
Stillwell v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 546. Thus, any error in allowing Brown’s testimony
regarding other alleged violations was harmless. We affirm the revocation.
Affirmed.
GLOVER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3