Jerome Hatton v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DIVISION III
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JUDGE DAVID M. GLOVER
CACR05-845
May 31, 2006
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR 03-804]
JEROME HATTON
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
HONORABLE C. DAVID BURNETT,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Jerome Hatton pleaded guilty on March 4, 2004, to possession of a controlled
substance (marijuana) with intent to deliver and was placed on probation for a period of
eight years. Conditions of his probation included, among other things, not violating any
state, federal, or municipal law; paying a fine, court costs, and probation fees; not using
or possessing any alcohol, illegal drug, or controlled substance; submitting to drug
testing; and reporting to his probation officer. On February 16, 2005, the State filed a
petition to revoke Hatton’s probation, alleging that he had failed to pay fines, costs, and
fees; failed to report to his probation officer; failed to pay probation fees; failed to notify
the sheriff and his probation officer of his current address and employment; had
committed domestic battery; had possessed a firearm as a felon; had possessed and used
marijuana; and had possessed and used cocaine. After a hearing, the trial court revoked
Hatton’s probation and sentenced him to ten years in the Arkansas Department of
Correction. Hatton now appeals, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence
to support the revocation of his probation. We affirm the revocation.
In Richardson v. State, 85 Ark. App. 347, 350, 157 S.W.3d 536, 538 (2004)
(citations omitted), we again set forth our well-settled standard of review for cases
involving probation revocation:
To revoke probation or a suspension, the trial court must find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably violated a
condition of that probation or suspension. The State bears the burden of
proof, but need only prove that the defendant committed one violation of
the conditions. When appealing a revocation, the appellant has the burden
of showing that the trial court's findings are clearly against the
preponderance of the evidence. Evidence that is insufficient for a criminal
conviction may be sufficient for the revocation of probation or suspended
sentence. Since the determination of a preponderance of the evidence turns
on questions of credibility and the weight to be given testimony, we defer to
the trial judge's superior position.
At the revocation hearing, Deborah Wiseman, an employee of the Crittenden
County Sheriff’s Department, testified that Hatton had paid a total of $385 toward his fine
and costs. She said that he had been ordered to pay seventy-five dollars per month, and
that he should have paid $900 as of the date of the hearing.
April Wilson, a probation officer with the Department of Community Punishment,
testified that she was assigned to supervise Hatton; that his intake was performed on
March 8, 2004; that she and Hatton discussed the terms of his probation at that time; and
that he agreed to the terms. Wilson said that Hatton reported from April to November
2004, that he did not report in December 2004 and January 2005, but that he did report in
February 2005. Wilson testified that Hatton tested positive for cocaine and marijuana on
March 25, 2004, and again on January 24, 2005. Wilson also said that Hatton was $50
behind in payment of his probation fees.
Alvin Honeycutt, an employee of the Hughes Police Department, testified that he
responded to a call from the Maywood Apartments and that when he arrived, he found
Connie Doolittle with a head wound. Honeycutt said that Doolittle identified Hatton as
the person who hit her over the head, that she completed an affidavit to that effect, that
the police department got a warrant for Hatton’s arrest, and that Hatton turned himself in
at the police department. Honeycutt said that he did not know if Hatton was the person
who struck Doolittle.
Connie Doolittle testified that she was hit in the head in front of her apartment, but
that she did not know who hit her. She said that she signed an affidavit stating that
Hatton was the person who hit her, but she did not know why she thought that it was him.
The State rested, the defense called no witnesses, and the trial court found that
Hatton had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Specifically, the trial court
found that Hatton had failed to pay his fines, costs, and probation fees; had failed to
report to his probation officer; and had tested positive on at least two occasions for
marijuana and cocaine. Additionally, the trial judge stated that he was convinced beyond
a probability that Hatton did commit an assault on Doolittle.
On appeal, Hatton focuses mainly on the assault on Doolittle, arguing that there
was no evidence that Hatton was the person who battered Doolittle. In support of this
argument, he points to Doolittle’s testimony that she did not know who hit her.
Furthermore, Hatton argues that he reported late in January 2005, so he only really missed
one meeting with his probation officer. He also argues that there was no evidence that the
drug tests were sent to a lab to be verified. The last two of these arguments are being
-3-
made for the first time on appeal; therefore, we are unable to address them. Nevertheless,
if we were to address them, we would not find such arguments to be meritorious.
Even assuming that the assault on Doolittle cannot be a basis for revocation of
Hatton’s probation, the trial court did not err in revoking Hatton’s probation. The State
only has to prove one violation of the conditions of probation. In this case, there is
undisputed evidence that Hatton was not current on payment of his fine, costs, or
probation fees; that he had missed at least one meeting with his probation officer; and that
he had tested positive for both cocaine and marijuana.
Any of these violations is
sufficient to support the revocation of Hatton’s probation, and the trial court did not err in
finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Hatton had violated the conditions of his
probation.
Affirmed.
N EAL and R OAF, 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.
