Joe v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Slip Opinion
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CACR 08-1106
No.
Opinion Delivered JULY
VERNIS VENDALE JOE
1, 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CLARK
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-2006-0092]
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
HONORABLE JOHN A. THOMAS,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
On June 2, 2008, a Clark County judge revoked Vernis Joe’s probation and sentenced
him to six years’ imprisonment, with two years’ suspended imposition of sentence. Joe
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation. We affirm.
Joe was placed on five years’ probation after pleading guilty to third-degree domestic
battering, second offense. The State filed a petition to revoke on April 1, 2008, alleging
several violations of the terms and conditions of Joe’s probation, including a failure to
abstain from the use of controlled substances.1 At the revocation hearing, Casey Jackson,
Joe’s probation officer, testified that Joe failed four drug tests. Joe objected to Jackson’s
testimony, as Jackson was not the one to administer the tests, but the court allowed the
1
There were other alleged violations, but because the trial court specifically revoked Joe for
using controlled substances, only facts related to that condition are outlined here.
evidence. Jackson also stated that he confronted Joe after two of the tests and that Joe signed
a confession on January 29, 2007, admitting that he used drugs on that date. On crossexamination, Jackson admitted that the failed drug tests occurred between September 2006
and October 2007 and that he did not revoke Joe during that time. The officer stated that he
wanted to give Joe an opportunity to clean up. When testifying in his own defense, Joe
admitted that he had a drug problem and that he “was just high all the time” while on
probation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Joe had violated the terms
and conditions of his probation by using controlled substances.
Joe argues that the State failed to show that he violated the terms and conditions of
his probation. He contended that Jackson’s testimony that he tested positive for drugs
violated his Confrontation Clause rights, as Jackson was not the one who administered the
drug tests. He also takes issue with the fact that the State waited six months after his last
positive drug test to file the petition to revoke.
A defendant’s probation may be revoked when a court finds by a preponderance of
the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his
probation. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d) (Repl. 2006); Williams v. State, 351 Ark. 229, 91
S.W.3d 68 (2002). The State need only show that the appellant committed one violation to
sustain a revocation. Richardson v. State, 85 Ark. App. 347, 157 S.W.3d 536 (2004). We
do not reverse a revocation unless the decision is clearly against the preponderance of the
evidence. Williams, supra.
-2-
Though couched in an argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Joe
argues that his rights under both the federal and state Confrontation Clauses were violated
when Jackson testified about the four positive drug tests, as Jackson did not personally
administer the test. We do not reach this issue, as any error resulting from the admission of
that testimony was harmless. Jackson testified that Joe signed a confession admitting to
marijuana use. In addition, Joe himself testified that he used controlled substances during
his probationary period. Therefore, we can affirm without reaching Joe’s confrontation
argument. Cf. Greene v. State, 324 Ark. 465, 921 S.W.2d 951 (1996) (holding that any error
from testimony that a probationer was found in a high-crime area was harmless in light of
other evidence showing that the probationer was in possession of cocaine at the time of his
arrest).
As for Joe’s argument that the State chose not to revoke him until six months after
his last positive drug test, we know of no authority requiring the State to file a revocation
petition immediately upon learning that a defendant has violated the terms and conditions
of his probation. The Arkansas Code allows a revocation at any time prior to the expiration
of the period of suspension or probation. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d) (Repl. 2006). The
fact that Jackson waited to revoke Joe’s probation does not make the evidence any less
sufficient.
The State presented sufficient evidence that Joe violated the terms and conditions of
his probation by using controlled substances. Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-
Affirmed.
ROBBINS and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
