James Alan Thomas v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
D.P. MARSHALL JR., Judge
DIVISION II
CACR06-864
27 June 2007
JAMES ALAN THOMAS,
APPELLANT
AN APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR-2004-324-2]
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE
THE HONORABLE DAVID S.
CLINGER, CIRCUIT JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MO TI ON TO BE
RELIEVED GRANTED
James Alan Thomas appeals the revocation of his probation. His attorney filed
a no-merit brief and a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(j)(1). Thomas did not file
pro se points on appeal.
In 2004, Thomas pleaded guilty to domestic battery and violating a protection
order. The circuit court placed him on supervised probation for one year. In 2006,
the State petitioned to revoke, alleging that Thomas had violated several conditions of
his probation. The State amended the petition twice to include violations for drug use
and possession. At the revocation hearing, Thomas did not deny that he had confessed
to using marijuana or that he had been convicted of two drug-related crimes in
Missouri.
The circuit court revoked Thomas’s probation because he failed to report to his
probation officer, did not finish court-ordered anger-management classes, failed to tell
his probation officer about his change in employment, failed to pay fines, moved to
Missouri without telling the court or his probation officer, admitted to using drugs,
and was convicted of possessing drugs and drug paraphernalia.
The State had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Thomas
inexcusably violated one of his probation conditions. Richardson v. State, 85 Ark. App.
347, 350, 157 S.W.3d 536, 538 (2004). At the hearing, Thomas apologized and
explained to the circuit court that he violated many of his conditions because he was
caring for his parents and girlfriend, all of whom had serious health problems. At least
one of his violations, however, was undisputed and inexcusable: his admitted drug use
and possession had nothing to do with caring for ailing loved ones. Therefore, the
circuit court’s revocation of Thomas’s probation was not clearly against the
preponderance of the evidence. Ibid. We affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s
motion to be relieved.
GLADWIN and MILLER, JJ., agree.
2
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.
