Andre Antonio Roddy v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
ar03-802

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DIVISION III

ANDRÉ ANTONIO RODDY

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,

APPELLEE

CACR03-802

APRIL 21, 2004

APPEAL FROM THE PHILLIPS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NO. CR01-264,

HON. HARVEY LEE YATES, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Sam Bird, Judge

André Roddy appeals the revocation of his probation. He raises two points, first contending that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence packages accompanied by a field-test form and a crime-laboratory report showing that they contained cocaine and marijuana. As his second point, Roddy contends that the trial court clearly erred in failing to suppress evidence seized as the result of an illegal stop, detention, and arrest. We see no merit to these points, and we affirm the revocation.

On March 4, 2002, pursuant to a negotiated guilty plea for residential burglary, the Phillips County Circuit Court sentenced Roddy to five years' probation subject to written conditions. Among these conditions were that he not commit any criminal offense; that he not use, sell, distribute, or possess any controlled substance; that he report to a supervising officer monthly for twenty-four months, comply with the officer's written and oral instructions, pay a monthly probation fee of $25, and submit to any non-residential rehabilitative program that the officer deemed necessary; that he perform 100 hours community service; and that he pay $100 monthly towards a $500 fine and $175 court costs. On December 4, 2002, the State filed a petition for revocation, alleging that Roddy had inexcusably failed to comply with conditions of his suspension. After conducting a hearing on March 13, 2003, the trial court concluded that Roddy had inexcusably failed to comply with conditions. In Finding No. 6, the court stated that on June 3, 2002, Roddy committed the crime of possession of the controlled substance cocaine and the crime of possession of the controlled substance marijuana, third offense. In Finding No. 8 the trial court stated that on June 3, 2002, Roddy possessed cocaine and marijuana. Finding No. 10 was that Roddy did not comply with the reasonable requests of his probation officer, did not report regularly, did not attend drug rehabilitation, had tested positive for controlled substances, and was convicted in West Helena District Court for DWI and failure to appear.

A revocation of probation requires a finding that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his suspension or probation. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d) (Repl. 1997). The burden is on the State in a revocation proceeding to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the violation of a condition of probation. Wade v. State, 64 Ark. App. 108, 983 S.W.2d 147 (1998). Although the State bears the burden of proof, it need only prove that the defendant committed one violation of the conditions. Richardson v. State, ___ Ark. App. ___ , ___ S.W.3d ___ (March 10, 2004).

Roddy does not challenge Finding No. 10, which stated that he did not report regularly, did not attend drug rehabilitation, tested positive for controlled substances, and had been convicted of DWI and failure to appear. Thus, on appeal, Finding No. 10 is uncontested evidence of Roddy's violation of the conditions that he comply with all written and oral instructions given by his probation officer; submit to any non-residential rehabilitative program deemed necessary by his supervising officer, and not commit any criminal offense.1

Because the State needed to prove only that one condition had been violated, we affirm without addressing Roddy's challenge to the chain of custody of evidence, and to the legality of the arrest and stop, that resulted in the trial court's findings that Roddy possessed controlled substances and that he committed crimes by doing so. We note, however, that it has long been the law in our state that the exclusionary rule does not apply in revocation hearings. Deere v. State, 59 Ark App. 174, 954 S.W.2d 943 (1997). Furthermore, on appeal we will not address arguments, even constitutional ones, that have not been developed before the trial court. See Williams v. State, 331 Ark. 263, 962 S.W.2d 329 (1998). The abstract does not show that the issues of reasonable suspicion and illegal stop were raised at the hearing.

Affirmed.

Gladwin and Roaf, JJ., agree.

1 Evanstene Peters-Holmes, Roddy's probation officer, testified that Roddy failed random drug tests by testing positive for marijuana and cocaine on June 4, 2002, and on August 6, 2002. Peters-Holmes also testified that Roddy was directed to attend an out-patient drug-rehabilitation program, but that Roddy did not do so; and that Roddy reported only periodically rather than for all the required months. Finally, Roddy testified that he and the female with him had been smoking marijuana when he was stopped at United Auto Traders, he was smoking crack cocaine, and it was in his mouth; and that he had been convicted of DWI since being put on probation.