Demeonta Barlow v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 31
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-24-44

DEMEONTA BARLOW
APPELLANT Opinion Delivered January 22, 2025

V. APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 26CR-21-598]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE KARA A. PETRO,
APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge
The Garland County Circuit Court revoked appellant Demeonta Barlow’s suspended

imposition of sentence (SIS) and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal,

Barlow challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation. We affirm.

On March 29, 2022, Barlow pleaded guilty to committing a terroristic act for shooting

at someone from his car, a Class B felony, in Garland County case number 26CR-21-598.

The circuit court imposed a sentence of four years’ imprisonment with an additional two

years’ suspended sentence. The first condition of Barlow’s suspended sentence was that he

not commit a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment.

On February 27, 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke Barlow’s suspended

sentence because he was arrested and charged with the new crime of being a felon in
possession of a firearm on December 21, 2022. A revocation hearing was held September

19, 2023.

At the hearing, Barlow’s parole officer, Blake Morris, testified he had supervised

Barlow’s parole since August 2022. He explained that at the initial meeting, he went over

the conditions of parole with Barlow to ensure Barlow understood the terms. At that

meeting, Barlow provided his address as 232 South Patterson in Hot Springs. Morris recalled

that on the morning of December 21, 2022, Barlow met with him for a parole appointment,

and then Barlow went to work. Morris subsequently was contacted by Detective Plummer

with the Hot Springs Police Department who showed him a video from Barlow’s Instagram

account of Barlow holding two guns. Morris testified that on the basis of the information

from Plummer, he went to Barlow’s work and picked him up to conduct a home visit. On

the way to Barlow’s address at 232 South Patterson, Morris asked Barlow if anyone else lived

in the home. Barlow responded that his aunt, Swanzettua Blanchard, was the only other

person who lived at the address.

During his testimony, Morris recalled that upon arriving at the residence, no one

appeared to be home. Morris called Blanchard to let him in, and she arrived shortly after to

let him in the house to conduct a search. Just before going inside, Morris confirmed he was

at Barlow’s address by asking Barlow to point to the window of his bedroom. Barlow pointed

at a window. Morris testified that, upon entering the house, he saw two young men sitting

on the couch who were later identified as Devin Williams and Cayden Hariston. Morris said

Blanchard pointed out Barlow’s room, which corresponded with the window to which

2
Barlow had earlier pointed. Inside the bedroom, Morris located a shoebox on the headboard

of the bed that contained a firearm identified as a Zigana 9mm pistol. At this point, Barlow

was still outside in the care of another parole officer. Morris testified he next contacted

Detective Plummer.

Upon being notified by Morris, Plummer responded to the scene. Plummer testified

that after clearing out and preserving the inside of the residence, one of his colleagues

prepared a search warrant for the house, and then other officers transported Barlow to the

police department for an interview. Plummer testified that during the search of the full

premises, he also located a 12-gauge shotgun and a Kel-Tec sub 2000 9mm rifle in other areas

of the house. Additionally, Plummer recovered a revolver that initially appeared real but was

later determined to be fake. Plummer could not say with certainty the guns found were the

same guns as those in the Instagram video.

Plummer testified that, initially, Blanchard told him the Zigana pistol found in

Barlow’s room was hers, but then Williams claimed his friend had given it to him. Williams

left to get his friend, Arius Adams, who supposedly gave him the Zigana firearm. Plummer

said he spoke with Adams, who told Plummer where the firearm was purchased. Adams told

Plummer that he had given the firearm to Williams. Adams did not live at 232 South

Patterson.

Blanchard testified for the defense. She testified she lived at 232 South Patterson and

that her son, Williams, resided with her part time. Williams attended school elsewhere but

would come home on weekends and holidays. On the day of the search, Williams was home

3
for Christmas break. Hariston lived with Blanchard full time. Blanchard testified that at the

time of the search, Barlow was living with Blanchard’s aunt on Terry Street. Blanchard

claimed possession of the 12-gauge shotgun and the Kel-Tec rifle found in her bedroom.

Blanchard was not familiar with the Zigana pistol found by Morris and was unaware it was

in her house until Morris located it. She testified that she initially claimed the Zigana as hers

because she believed it could be Williams, and she did not want him getting in trouble for

it.

Adams testified that his dad purchased the Zigana and that approximately one week

before Morris discovered the gun, Adams had left it at the residence. Adams said he had

never seen Barlow at the residence.

Eric Adams testified he is Arius Adams’s father, he is the owner of the Zigana

handgun, he had purchased the gun in 2021, and he was unaware that Arius had taken the

gun from his house. Adams stated he does not know Barlow and never sold or gave the gun

to him.

Barlow testified that his address was 232 South Patterson. However, he told the court

that when the pistol was found in his bedroom at that address, he was living at the Terry

Street address. He testified that he lived at 232 South Patterson “for like four days” after he

was paroled. Barlow testified that he thought he notified Morris he was no longer living at

232 South Patterson but admitted that it was possible he forgot to. Barlow admitted that, on

the day Morris conducted the home visit at 232 South Patterson, he never told Morris he

was not living there. He testified that the Instagram video depicting him holding two guns

4
that was discovered during Plummer’s investigation was either from a “fake” account or was

taken out of context from a mix of two different videos.

The court found that Barlow had violated condition 1 of his suspended sentence by

committing the new crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court noted

Blanchard’s lack of credibility due to her admissions that she lied to police about her

ownership of the gun and that Barlow lived in her home. The court also noted Barlow’s lack

of credibility by maintaining that he lived at 232 South Patterson and claiming the Terry

Street address only after the gun was found in his room. The court found that the Instagram

video of Barlow holding guns corroborated the evidence that he possessed the pistol found

in his room. Finally, the court noted that the shoebox the pistol was found in was in “plain

sight” on the headboard of Barlow’s bed. The court sentenced Barlow to a term of ten years’

imprisonment.

Barlow now appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that he possessed a

firearm. Specifically, he contends that the firearm was found in a jointly occupied premises,

and the necessary additional factors linking him to the firearm are lacking.

To revoke probation or an SIS, the burden is on the State to prove the violation of a

condition of the probation or SIS by a preponderance of the evidence. Jones v. State, 355 Ark.

630, 144 S.W.3d 254 (2004). Because the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the

evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence that is insufficient to support a

criminal conviction may be sufficient to support a revocation. Id. Circumstantial evidence

5
may be sufficient to warrant revocation. Passmore v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 425, 698 S.W.3d

400.

The supreme court has consistently held that possession of contraband may be proved

by constructive possession, which is the control or right to control the contraband; thus, it

is not necessary for the State to prove actual possession of the contraband. Jones, 355 Ark.

630, 144 S.W.3d 254. To prove constructive possession, the State must establish that the

defendant exercised care, control, and management over the contraband. Id. Constructive

possession may be inferred when the contraband is in the joint control of the defendant and

another person. Burgess v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 54. Joint occupancy alone, however, is not

sufficient to establish possession or joint possession; there must be some additional factor

linking the accused to the contraband. Id. A defendant’s control over, and knowledge of, the

contraband can be inferred from the circumstances, which includes whether the contraband

was found in plain view. Id.

The undisputed evidence showed that Barlow told Morris his address was 232 South

Patterson and never told him otherwise, even when Morris picked him up to conduct a home

visit at that address. Barlow told Morris that he and Blanchard were the only people who

lived at that address. Barlow even pointed out his bedroom window for Morris. Blanchard

affirmed that Barlow lived in the room he pointed out and led Morris to it. Morris found a

pistol in a shoebox sitting in plain sight on the headboard of Barlow’s bed. Moreover, there

was testimony that Barlow’s Instagram account showed him holding two firearms. Although

Barlow denied possessing the pistol and presented testimony that he had no knowledge of

6
the pistol, the circuit court clearly did not find his testimony credible. See Palmer v. State,

2023 Ark. App. 178, at 6, 663 S.W.3d 436, 440 (SIS revoked, in part, because officers found

a firearm in plain view in the bedroom that the roommate said belonged to appellant).

Applying these principles, we hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that

Barlow constructively possessed the firearm and thus violated a condition of his probation.

Affirmed.

BARRETT and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

The Lane Firm, by: Jonathan T. Lane, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Jacob Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

7