Anthony D. Price v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JUDGE DAVID M. GLOVER
DIVISION III
CACR07-31
June 20, 2007
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR-03-1320, CR-05-76, CR05-103]
ANTHONY D. PRICE
APPELLANT
V.
HONORABLE NORMAN
WILKINSON, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
Appellant, Anthony Price, appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences.
On July 27, 2006, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s suspended imposition of
sentences on the underlying offenses of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver,
possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and delivery
of cocaine. The petition alleged that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his
suspended sentences by committing the offense of third-degree battery. A hearing was
held on September 27, 2006, and at its conclusion the trial court determined that the
appellant had committed third-degree battery in violation of his suspended sentences and
that his suspended sentences should be revoked. For his sole point of appeal, he contends
that the trial court erred in granting the State’s petition to revoke for the reason that there
is insufficient evidence that he violated the terms and conditions of his suspended
sentences. We disagree and affirm.
At the revocation hearing, Michael Warren, a Fort Smith police detective, testified
that he investigated a battery involving a woman named Edna Wilson. He explained that
Ms. Wilson reported that she had learned her attacker’s name was Anthony Price; that he
was able to obtain a photo ID of Price; that he compiled a photo line-up and had Ms.
Wilson come to his office; and that she identified appellant. He said that her injuries were
evident, even three days after the incident, and that her eye was swollen.
Ms. Wilson testified that she was at the Golden Goose Club on May 6, 2006; that
when she returned to her seat after dancing, appellant was in her chair; that he refused to
get up; that she commented that “young folks don’t respect adults”; that she pushed him
in reaching for her drink; that he hit her in the eye; that she fell on him, and when she did
she grabbed his chain and he hit her again. She explained that the first hit dazed her, and
she was just trying to grab onto something so she would not fall forward when she
grabbed the chain around his neck.
Ms. Wilson stated that she had to seek treatment for her eye injuries at the hospital;
that they told her her eye socket was out of place; that an eye doctor put it back in place;
that the doctor told her she could not have surgery because she is diabetic; and that it
would be a year before her eye would really heal.
Ms. Wilson explained that Detective Warren showed her a photo line-up; that she
recognized appellant as the person who hit her; and that she called him “Awax” because
-2-
he went to school with her daughter and had been to her house several times as a
teenager.
She acknowledged on cross-examination that she had not seen him in a long
time before the night of the incident and that all she could remember at first was his
nickname, “Awax.”
Megnon Parks, Edna Wilson’s daughter, testified that she was at the club on the
night in question for about thirty minutes; that she knew the appellant; that she grew up
with him; and that they did not go to school together but “ended up in numerous places
together.” She stated that she knew him and recognized him on sight and that if she had
seen him at the club that night, she would have talked to him.
She stated that he
contacted her after the incident; told her he was sorry; and asked that her mother drop the
charges.
Jermaine Jackson testified that he worked at the Golden Goose checking ID’s; that
he was there on the night in question; that the only thing he saw was “this woman outside
with a swollen eye”; and that he did not see how it happened. He explained that he stays
at the door; that at most, he would only have been away from the door for twenty
minutes and then it is covered by a bouncer; that two cops came and looked through the
club trying to find the person who hit Ms. Wilson; and that they should have been able to
find him but could not. He denied seeing appellant at the club on the night in question.
On cross-examination, Jackson acknowledged that he had seen Ms. Wilson earlier in the
evening and that her eye was not swollen, and that he then saw her outside later and her
eye was swollen.
-3-
Ardeen Price testified that appellant is her grandson and that he has lived with her
since making parole in April.
Appellant testified that his nickname is “Awax”; that on May 6 he was at his
grandmother’s house taking care of her; that he did not go to the Golden Goose on that
night; that he was paroled to his grandmother’s house on April 18 or 19, 2006; and that he
did not go to the Golden Goose during that entire period, including May 6. He denied
ever going to Ms. Wilson’s house and also denied going to school with her daughter. He
stated that he did not hit Ms. Wilson on May 6. He acknowledged getting in touch with
Ms. Wilson’s daughter, Megnon, to “check it out.” He said that he got her number from
his friend Maurice Wilson, and that he called because “I wanted to know. I was lost. I
didn’t know what was going on or what this charge had come from.”
He denied telling
her to drop the charges. He acknowledged “knowing of” Megnon.
Our court has held that in order to revoke probation or a suspended sentence, the
burden is on the State to prove the violation of a condition of probation or suspended
sentence by a preponderance of the evidence.
Stultz v. State, 92 Ark. App. 204, 212
S.W.3d 42 (2005). On appellate review, the trial court’s findings will be upheld unless
they are clearly against a preponderance of the evidence. Id. 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. Id. Because the burdens are
different, evidence that is insufficient for a criminal conviction may be sufficient for a
-4-
probation revocation. Jones v. State, 355 Ark. 630, 144 S.W.3d 254 (2004). Thus, the
burden on the State is not as great in a revocation hearing. Id.
Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his revocation,
arguing that “there is no evidence, other than the claim of the victim, that appellant did
the offense.” The claim of the victim is all that is necessary. See Galvin v. State, 323 Ark.
125, 912 S.W.2d 932 (1996). On matters of credibility of the witnesses and conflicting
testimony, we have repeatedly held that the determination of those issues is left to the trier
of fact. Id. Further, the uncorroborated testimony of one State’s witness is sufficient to
sustain a conviction. Id. Here, the trial judge clearly found Ms. Wilson’s testimony to be
more credible than that of appellant. We hold that the trial court’s determination that
appellant violated the terms and conditions of his suspension by committing the offense of
battery is not clearly erroneous.
We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s revocation of
appellant’s suspended sentence.
Affirmed.
H ART and G RIFFEN, JJ., agree.
-5-
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.
