Linda Reynolds v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  DIVISION IV  CACR05­958  LINDA REYNOLDS  APPELLANT  March 15, 2006  AN APPEAL FROM PULASKI  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT  [CR03­1042]  V.  HON. JOHN LANGSTON, JUDGE  STATE OF ARKANSAS  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED WENDELL L. GRIFFEN, Judge  Linda Reynolds appeals from the revocation of her probationary sentence. She argues  that the State failed to present sufficient proof that she inexcusably violated the terms of her  probation by failing to report to her probation officer.  We disagree and affirm the revocation  of her probation.  In January 2004, Reynolds received a five­year probationary sentence after pleading  guilty to theft of property in Pulaski County Circuit Court.  Among other things, she was  ordered  to  report  monthly  to  her  probation  officer  and  to  pay  probationary  fees  and  restitution.  On  September  3,  2004,  the  State  filed  a  revocation  petition,  alleging  that  Reynolds had failed to report to her probation officer and failed to pay probation fees.  A hearing on the matter was held on May 20, 2005, during which  Janna Pinkston,  Reynolds’ Pulaski County Probation Officer, testified that Reynolds had been informed of  her obligation to report monthly but that she never reported in person and had telephoned  only one time.  Reynolds testified that she was also on probation in Lonoke County and she believed that, by reporting in Lonoke County, she satisfied her obligation to report in Pulaski  County.  The trial court found that Reynolds violated the terms of her probation by failing  to report and sentenced her to serve three years in the Arkansas Department of Correction,  with suspended imposition of the sentence for one year and with a judicial transfer to the  Community Correction Center.  Reynolds’ sole argument is that the State failed to prove that she inexcusably violated  the  terms  of  her  probation  by  failing to  report  to  her  probation  officer.    In  a  revocation  proceeding, the burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the  defendant inexcusably violated a condition of his probation.  Ark. Code Ann. § 5­4­309(d)  (Supp. 2005).  We will affirm the trial court’s revocation findings unless they are clearly  against a preponderance of the evidence.  Lamb v. State, 74 Ark. App. 245, 45 S.W.3d 869  (2001).  Evidence that is insufficient for a criminal conviction  may be sufficient for the  revocation of probation.  Id.  Since the determination of a preponderance of the evidence  turns on questions of credibility and the weight to be given to testimony, we defer to the trial  judge's superior position to resolve those questions.  Id.  The State need only prove a single  violation  to  support  the  revocation  of  probation.  Thompson  v.  State,  342  Ark.  365,  28  S.W.3d 290 (2000).  Here, as Reynolds concedes that the State proved she was required to report monthly  to her probation officer but failed to do so, the only issue is whether the trial court erred in  determining that her failure to report was inexcusable.  We hold that the trial court did not  err in making that determination.  Reynolds testified that she was on probation in Lonoke County at the same time she  was  on  probation  in  Pulaski  County.  She  said  that  she  contacted  the  Pulaski  County  Probation Office after being placed on probation, and it was her “understanding” that her  Lonoke County probation officer, whom she identified as Officer Callahan, would cover both 2  counties.  However, she admitted that she owed fines and restitution in Pulaski County and  that  she  telephoned  Pulaski  County  to  explain  why  she  could  not  pay  her  fines  and  restitution.    Reynolds  stated  that  she  believed  she  was  obligated  to  pay  her  fines  to  the  Pulaski  County  office,  but  did  not  believe  she  was  obligated  to  report  personally  to  the  Pulaski County office. Nonetheless, she admitted that a probation officer discussed the terms  of her Pulaski County probation with her, that she signed the form, and that she also failed  to report as ordered to her Lonoke County probation officer.  In short, we affirm because the trial court’s decision to disbelieve Reynolds’ reasons  for not reporting in Pulaski County is simply a credibility determination which we will not  disturb on appeal.  Lamb, supra.  The trial court was not required to believe  Reynolds’  assertion that, although she knew she was obligated to report to Pulaski County regarding her  fines, she believed that she was not obligated to report personally to Pulaski County.  In any  event,  even  if  the  trial  court  believed  Reynolds’  assertion  in  that  regard,  Reynolds  also  admitted that she had not reported as required to her Lonoke County Probation Officer.  Despite Reynolds’ testimony to the contrary, it is clear she was on notice that she was  required  to  report  to  the  Pulaski  County  Probation  Office.    Reynolds  admitted  that  a  probation  officer  read  to  her  and  that  she  signed  State’s  Exhibit  2,  which  sets  forth  the  conditions of her Pulaski County probation.  She admitted at the hearing that State’s Exhibit  2 is a document from the Pulaski County Circuit Court.  Moreover, she knew the reason she  was signing that form was because she had pleaded guilty to theft of property in Pulaski  County  Circuit  Court  and  had  thereafter  been  placed  on  probation  in  Pulaski  County.  Finally, the fact that Reynolds knew that she was to report to the Pulaski County office to  pay her fines demonstrates her knowledge that she was to report to that same office to fulfill  the remainder of the conditions of her Pulaski County probation.  On these facts, we affirm  the revocation of Reynolds’ probation. 3  Affirmed.  GLADWIN  and NEAL, 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.