Chandra Williams v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 534
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-24-73

CHANDRA WILLIAMS Opinion Delivered October 30, 2024
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 17CR-21-750]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE MARC MCCUNE,
APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

The Crawford County Circuit Court revoked appellant Chandra Williams’s

probation for the underlying charges of possession of methamphetamine and possession of

drug paraphernalia, both Class D felonies, upon finding that she had violated the terms and

conditions of her probation. She was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment followed by six

years’ suspended imposition of sentence (SIS). Appellant argues that the circuit court erred

by denying her directed-verdict motion. We affirm.

Appellant pled guilty to the above charges on March 30, 2022, and was given five

years’ supervised probation and ordered to pay fines and fees. She was required to complete

thirty days of community service and to start paying her fines and fees thirty days after that

at the rate of $100 a month. She was also required to be gainfully employed or enrolled as

a student at all times; comply with the written rules of probation and supervision; report to
Western Arkansas Guidance Center within a week for assessment and to comply with all

recommendations; and pay $35 a month for probation-supervision fees. Appellant signed

all necessary documents on March 30.

The State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s probation on March 14, 2023,

contending that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of her probation by failing

to report to her probation officer as ordered at least twice in August 2022, failing to provide

proof of employment or proof of enrollment in an educational facility, failing to report a

change of address and had changed addresses without prior approval of her probation

officer, and failing to pay the fines and costs as ordered by the circuit court with a balance

of $3,105 remaining.

The probation-revocation hearing took place on October 4, 2023. Officer Zachary

Banks testified that he was currently appellant’s probation officer, having taken on that role

in October 2022. He stated that the violation report was originally made by appellant’s

previous probation officer in August 2022, but that officer was no longer an employee. He

said that he resubmitted the violation report in February 2023. He testified that appellant

failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her probation by failing to report to

community service as ordered and failing to report to her probation officer. He stated that

appellant was currently in partial compliance in that she reports to the office weekly but that

she still was not employed or enrolled in an educational program, had not completed

community service, and had not paid her fees. He testified that he did not see appellant

until August 2023, six days after she was released from jail. He stated that appellant had

2
been arrested on July 11 and released on August 10 due to a court commitment for

absconding. He said that since that time, appellant had paid $65 towards her probation-

supervision fees and that she still owed $390. Officer Banks testified that probationers are

made aware of the terms and conditions of their probation when they sign them in the

courtroom.

Deborah Martin testified that she is responsible for collecting all the fines and

restitution in Crawford County. She stated that appellant had not made any payments in

this case. However, she admitted that appellant had made a $69 payment that morning,

which was applied to an older case.

At the conclusion of the State’s case, appellant’s counsel unsuccessfully made the

following motion:

Your Honor, at this time I would make a Motion for Directed Verdict. The State has
introduced or made no reference to any evidence that the Defendant entered, pleaded
guilty, was represented by an attorney, was found guilty, was sentenced, or that as a
condition of that sentence, was placed on probation.

Further, there’s been no evidence that she was presented or read the written rules of
conduct of probation and advised of those. I would note that while there was some
reference to generalities of probation by Mr. Banks, the State relied upon hearsay for
that, and despite hearsay being more lenient in revocation hearings, my client does
still have a right under the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution, as
well as the Arkansas Constitution, to confront and cross-examine witnesses.

When no direct evidence is referenced either by a document, or by witness, or by
testimony, it denies my client her right to confront and cross-examining witnesses.

At this time, we would ask for the Court to dismiss all charges against her on that
basis.

3
Appellant testified that she did not report to her probation officer after August 2022

because she became homeless when her brother came home from prison and kicked her out

of their mother’s home. She stated that she lived in the woods or would sleep at friends’

homes when able. She moved back home about a month later. She testified that her brother

was evicted from her mother’s home about two days ago. She stated that she works side jobs

when she can and that she helps take care of her mother, who is completely bedridden. She

said that she did not do community service in Alma because the building was under

construction, and she could not do it in Ft. Smith because she did not have transportation.

She admitted that although she and her brother both lived in their mother’s home, she

thought that the condition prohibiting her from living with felons did not apply to them

since they were immediate family members, and both had been registered to that address via

their probation officers. She said that she failed to report as ordered because she was

homeless and that once she returned home, she was afraid to report. She agreed that when

she pled guilty and signed the paperwork, the paperwork did not say to follow the rules if

she could. She admitted that she was in violation of the terms and conditions of her

probation.

Appellant’s counsel renewed the earlier motion and rested. The circuit court denied

the motion again. Appellant was found to be in violation of her probation in the two

underlying cases. She was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on the possession-of-

methamphetamine charge, and she was sentenced to six years’ SIS on the possession-of-drug-

4
paraphernalia charge. The sentencing order was filed on October 23, 2023. Appellant filed

a timely notice of appeal on November 13.

Appellant contends that the circuit court erred when it denied her motion for

directed verdict. Motions for directed verdict are challenges to the sufficiency of the

evidence.1 Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(d),2 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 has inexcusably failed to comply

with a condition of the probation. 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. 3 This court defers to the

superior position of the circuit court on determinations of credibility and weight to be given

to the testimony.4

Appellant pretty much concedes that she failed to comply with the terms and

conditions of her probation as alleged in the State’s petition. Citing Scroggins v. State,5

appellant maintains that the evidence was insufficient to show that the circuit court was

1
Holland v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 49, 510 S.W.3d 311.
2
(Supp. 2023).

3
Morgan v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 212, 599 S.W.3d 665.

4
Gilbreth v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 86, 596 S.W.3d 29.
5
2021 Ark. App. 87, 389 S.W.3d 40.

5
aware of the terms and conditions of her probation or that appellant knew that those terms

applied to her case. However, this is not the same argument advanced at the revocation

hearing and is thus not preserved for our review.

However, even if the argument was preserved, it would fail. Appellant acknowledged

that she pled guilty to the underlying charges and signed the necessary paperwork, which she

admitted she violated. She never testified that she did not know her actions listed in the

revocation petition were in violation of the terms and conditions of her probation. As a

matter of fact, she acknowledged they were. Additionally, appellant’s signature was found

on the guilty plea with the accompanying conditions as well as the additional terms for

community service. These documents prove that the terms and conditions were expressly

communicated to appellant in writing. The circuit court also signed the plea agreement with

accompanying conditions. A court may take judicial notice of its own record in the same

case file.6 Additionally, Officer Banks testified that appellant would have been made aware

of the terms and conditions of her probation when she signed them in court. This evidence

is enough to show that both appellant and the circuit court knew the terms and conditions

of her probation.

Appellate counsel attempts to point us to a colloquy between appellant and the circuit

court to show that neither appellant nor the circuit court understood the terms and

conditions of appellant’s probation; however, most of that colloquy involves another case,

6
Mathis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 49, 616 S.W.3d 274.

6
not the subject of this revocation; thus, counsel’s argument concerning this colloquy is

misplaced.

Affirmed.

HARRISON, C.J., and GLADWIN, J., agree.

Lancaster Law Firm, PLLC, by: Clinton W. Lancaster, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: James Hill, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

7