Olajide Roddy v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 471
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-23-204

Opinion Delivered October 25, 2023
OLAJIDE RODDY
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
WESTERN DISTRICT
V.
[NO. 16JCR-18-1406]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

Olajide Roddy appeals a Craighead County Circuit Court order revoking his

suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) and sentencing him to fifty-four months’

imprisonment.1 On appeal, he claims that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion

for directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence that he was in constructive or

actual possession of the contraband. We affirm.

To revoke an SIS or probation, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the

evidence that the defendant has inexcusably violated a condition of the SIS or probation.

1
This is a companion case to two other criminal cases: No. 16JCR-21-23, in which
Roddy was placed on probation; and No. 16JCR-18-882, in which Roddy was given a
suspended imposition of sentence. The circuit court held a combined revocation hearing in
the three cases but issued three separate sentencing orders. Roddy filed separate appeals, and
today, we hand down opinions in all three appeals. See Roddy v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 472;
Roddy v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 466.
Springs v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 364, 525 S.W.3d 490. The State’s burden of proof in a

revocation proceeding is lower than that required to convict in a criminal trial, and evidence

that is insufficient for a conviction may be sufficient for a revocation. Id. Furthermore, the

State does not have to prove every allegation in its petition, and proof of only one violation

is sufficient to sustain a revocation. Mathis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 49, 616 S.W.3d 274. On

appellate review, we uphold the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly against the

preponderance of the evidence. Id. Because the determination of a preponderance of the

evidence turns on questions of credibility and weight to be given to the testimony, we defer

to the circuit court’s superior position. Burgess v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 54.

On December 20, 2018, Roddy pled guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine

and misdemeanor battery, for which he was sentenced as a habitual offender to a total of

thirty months’ imprisonment, followed by sixty months’ SIS, subject to certain terms and

conditions. As part of the terms and conditions of his SIS, he was prohibited from

committing a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment; possessing any controlled

substance or associating with any person who is participating in or is known to participate

in the illegal use, sale, distribution, or possession of controlled substances or be present in

places where such persons congregate; and associating with persons who have been convicted

of felonies and persons who are engaged in criminal activity. Roddy acknowledged receipt of

the terms and conditions, as evidenced by his signature.

On October 3, the State filed a supplemental petition to revoke (PTR), alleging that

Roddy had violated the terms and conditions of his SIS by failing to live a law-abiding life,

2
to be of good behavior, and to not violate any federal, state, or municipal laws because on

July 3, 2021, he was found to be in possession of methamphetamine; on July 13, 2021, he

was found to be in possession of a glass pipe and methamphetamine and was associating

with another person on felony probation; on January 17, 2022, he was in possession of a

syringe loaded with methamphetamine and a baggie of methamphetamine; on or about June

15, 2022, he was in possession of syringes as well as an uncapped syringe loaded with

methamphetamine; and on May 31, 2022, he was in possession of a syringe loaded with

methamphetamine.2

The circuit court held a hearing on the October 3 PTR on October 7, 2022. At the

hearing, the circuit court took notice of the terms and conditions of Roddy’s SIS and the

relevant sentencing order. The State called four witnesses: two officers with the Jonesboro

Police Department (JPD) who testified about the May 2022 incident, a JPD officer who

testified about the June 2022 incident, and JPD Officer Cody Howard, who testified about

the July 2021 incident. When multiple offenses are alleged as justification for revocation,

the circuit court’s finding that revocation is justified must be affirmed if the evidence is

sufficient to establish that the appellant committed any one of the offenses. Williams v. State,

2015 Ark. App. 245, 459 S.W.3d 814. Accordingly, while the four officers testified about

three separate incidents involving Roddy, we recite the specifics of only Officer Howard’s

testimony.

2
The State initially filed a PTR on February 15, 2022; an amended PTR on February
16; a supplemental amended PTR on July 18; and a supplemental amended PTR on July 26.

3
Officer Howard testified that on July 13, 2021, he was dispatched to the Scottish Inn

Hotel, and upon arrival, Howard and another JPD officer made contact with Roddy outside

of room 136, which was rented to Patsy Thomas. Howard explained that he did some

research and learned that there were several incidents in which Thomas was “arrested for

narcotics-related traffic and arrested with . . . Roddy” and that both she and Roddy were on

“active supervision” and had a “search waiver” on file. Howard relayed that he saw Thomas

inside the room and had her come outside. Howard testified that while he searched Thomas,

the other officer searched Roddy and discovered a long glass pipe known to be used for

smoking methamphetamine on Roddy’s person. Howard testified further that the room was

searched, and several loose syringe caps, a bag of marijuana, and a bag of suspected

methamphetamine were found. Howard explained that the methamphetamine was sent to

the crime lab for analysis, and the crime lab test result, which was entered into evidence,

showed that the substance inside the bag was methamphetamine. Howard also testified that

while Thomas and Roddy both initially denied that the drugs were theirs, when Howard told

Thomas and Roddy that they were both going to be taken into custody for charges, Roddy

claimed the drugs. Roddy was taken into custody and charged with possession of

methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. Howard was not cross-examined,

and the State rested.

Roddy called no witnesses, rested, and then moved for directed verdict, arguing that

the State had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Roddy was guilty of the

charges because there were two people present at each incident about which an officer

4
testified. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that Roddy had inexcusably violated

the terms and conditions of his SIS. Roddy’s SIS was revoked, and he was sentenced to serve

fifty-four months’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.

Roddy challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Specifically, he argues

that because there were “multiple players to whom the drugs could have belonged in each of

the dwellings/hotel rooms in which an arrest was made,” there was insufficient evidence to

revoke his SIS. However, Officer Howard’s unchallenged testimony was that he participated

in the search of a hotel room that Roddy was seen directly outside of, in which several loose

syringe caps, a bag of marijuana, and a bag of methamphetamine were found, and Roddy

ultimately claimed that the drugs were his. Howard also testified that a methamphetamine

pipe was discovered on Roddy’s person and that Roddy was with Thomas, who was on active

supervision with a search waiver on file and had been arrested several times with Roddy for

narcotics-related offenses.

Officer Howard’s testimony was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the

evidence that Roddy had violated the terms and conditions of his SIS, see, e.g., Mathis, supra,

and it was up to the circuit court to assess the credibility and weight of that testimony, see

Burgess, supra. As such, there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation. Accordingly,

we affirm.

Affirmed.

HARRISON, C.J., and HIXSON, J., agree.

Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.

5
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

6