Crystal Vann v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 536
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-24-93

Opinion Delivered November 6, 2024

CRYSTAL VANN APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
WESTERN DISTRICT
V. [NO. 16JCR-21-1228]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CHRIS THYER,
APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Chief Judge

Crystal Vann appeals the order of the Craighead County Circuit Court revoking her

probation.1 She contends that the circuit court erred because the evidence was insufficient

to prove that she violated the terms of her probation. We affirm.

Before explaining the case and our decision, it is time to tell Vann’s counsel that she

needs to take more care in preparing her briefs in this court. They fall well below our

minimum standards. We offer this admonition as a course-correction measure and are

confident that we will not have to repeat ourselves again on this point. Now, the substance

of this appeal.

1
This is a companion case to Vann v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 537, an appeal from the
revocation of Vann’s probation in case No. 16JCR-22-1272, also handed down today. The
circuit court held one revocation hearing on the State’s petitions in both cases.
1
In December 2021, the State charged Vann with possession of a controlled substance

(methamphetamine), possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a controlled substance

(marijuana), driving on a suspended or canceled license, and driving without insurance. She

pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and received a

sentence of three years’ probation; the State nolle prossed the remaining charges.

In September 2022, the State petitioned to revoke Vann’s probation and alleged that

she had failed to report on 11 August 2022 after she was released from incarceration; failed

to report as directed on 26 August 2022; “made her whereabouts unknown” as of 1

September 2022; and owed $175 in supervision fees. The State later filed a supplemental

petition alleging that Vann had committed the offenses of possession of a controlled

substance (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia in September 2022.

Vann again pled guilty and received a sentence of three years’ probation.

The State petitioned to revoke Vann’s probation again on 20 January 2023 and

alleged that she had committed the offense of possession of methamphetamine on or about

3 January 2023. Between February 6 and September 6, the petition was amended five times;

relevant to this appeal, those amended petitions included additional allegations of (1)

possession of drug paraphernalia and associating with other probationers on January 3; (2)

possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug

paraphernalia on January 17;2 (3) possession of methamphetamine on March 2; (5) failure to

2
The amended petition identifies the date of these offenses as January 16; however,
later amended petitions and the testimony at the revocation hearing identify the date as
January 17.

2
report on August 10; and (6) failure to inform her probation officer of her current address.

The circuit court held a revocation hearing on 16 October 2023. Corey Obregon,

a police officer with the Jonesboro Police Department, testified that on 3 January 2023, he

conducted a traffic stop on an individual named Steve Randall, which led to a probation

search of Randall’s residence. Approximately five other people also stayed at that residence,

including Vann, and most of the occupants were on probation or parole. Vann identified

the room in which she and her daughter resided, and in that room, police located a small

box containing a meth pipe and three individual baggies of methamphetamine. Vann was

arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of methamphetamine.

Trevor Sutton, also a Jonesboro police officer, testified that on 17 January 2023, he

and another officer observed a vehicle driven in a suspicious manner as if to avoid police

contact. Vann was the driver, and her daughter was also in the car. The officers determined

that Vann was on probation, and Sutton conducted a probation search. Sutton found a glass

meth pipe and a small amount of marijuana in Vann’s purse. Consequently, Vann was

arrested on charges of possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana.

Summer Lovins, a corrections officer with the Craighead County Sheriff’s

Department, testified that she performed Vann’s intake at the detention center on January

17. Because the charges related to drugs, part of Vann’s intake was a strip search. That

search revealed a small bag of a green, leafy substance and a small bag of a white, crystal-like

substance.

Tanner Seal, a Jonesboro police officer, testified that he responded to an alarm at a

business on 2 March 2023. Vann and another individual were in a vehicle parked behind

3
the business. Another officer conducted a probation search of Vann’s person and found a

red leather bag containing two glass meth pipes and a white, crystalized substance in a baggie.

Vann was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of methamphetamine.

Christopher Shaver, Vann’s current probation officer, testified that since November

2022, Vann had committed multiple felonies and associated with other known felons, which

are violations of the terms and conditions of her probation. She had been charged with

possession of methamphetamine and marijuana multiple times, had failed to report on

August 10, and changed residences without informing him. After her arrests, she was

required to report to her probation officer within twenty-four hours of her release, but she

failed to do so. Finally, Vann tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine in

September 2023 and admitted using marijuana and methamphetamine in December 2022.

The State rested, and the defense rested without presenting any evidence. The

defense then moved to dismiss,3 arguing that the State had failed to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that Vann had actual or constructive possession of the drugs

at the times she was arrested. Counsel asserted, “There were many people at the house in

one of the arrest[s]. There [were] other people that had access to her car. There were

people—obviously at each arrest there seems to have been multiple people that could have

had access and could have planted those drugs at that time.”

The court denied the motion and found by a preponderance of the evidence that

3
Counsel framed this as a motion for directed verdict, but in a bench trial a challenge
to the sufficiency of the evidence is made in a motion to dismiss. Sharp v. State¸ 2019 Ark.
App. 506, 588 S.W.3d 770.

4
Vann had inexcusably violated the terms and conditions of her probation. The court

revoked Vann’s probation and sentenced her to six years’ imprisonment. She has timely

appealed.

A circuit court may revoke a defendant’s probation at any time prior to the expiration

of the period of probation if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the

defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a term or condition of the probation. Ark.

Code Ann. § 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2023). The State has the burden of proving that a

condition of probation has been violated. Thompson v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 421, 586

S.W.3d 682. The State need only show that the defendant committed one violation in

order to sustain a revocation. Id.

On appellate review, the circuit court’s findings will be upheld unless they are clearly

against the preponderance of the evidence. Geeslin v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 571, 533

S.W.3d 132. Because the burdens are different, evidence that is insufficient for a criminal

conviction may be sufficient for revocation of probation or suspension. Id. Furthermore,

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. Id.

Vann argues, as she did below, that when her arrests for possession occurred, she was

not the only person with access to the contraband. On January 3, it was unknown whether

other occupants of Randall’s home had access to her room; on January 17, it was unknown

whether anyone had access to her purse prior to her arrest, and a guard was present when

drugs were found during her strip search. Vann contends that “to assume she had

5
constructive possession or actual possession of the drugs and contraband is purely

speculative.”

Vann also asserts that the circuit court erred in revoking her probation based on

“technical violations.” She acknowledges this was not argued below but notes that in

revocation cases, the sufficiency of the evidence can be challenged without a motion to

dismiss. Brown v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 403, 500 S.W.3d 781. She argues, “In the instant

case, the probation officer testified of the technical violations from a report he did not create.

He admitted he was reading from the violations report. As such, it should be discounted in

its veracity.”

When multiple offenses are alleged as justification for revocation of probation, 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. Moreover, if the circuit court bases its decision to revoke

on multiple independent grounds, and the appellant fails to challenge any independent

alternative basis for the judgment, we will affirm without addressing arguments targeted to

the other grounds. Harden v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 361, 676 S.W.3d 4.

Here, Vann challenges the bases that she possessed either drugs or drug paraphernalia

on January 3 and January 17 and purports to challenge the “sufficiency” of the probation

officer’s testimony. However, she fails to challenge the alternative bases that she possessed

methamphetamine on March 2 and that she associated with other probationers. Thus, we

affirm without addressing the merits of her argument.

Affirmed.

6
GLADWIN and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

7