Jimmy Ed Lee v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE  DIVISION II  CACR07­684  December 5, 2007  JIMMY ED LEE  APPELLANT  V. APPEAL FROM THE LAFAYETTE  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT  [CR­2005­3­2]  HON. JAMES S. HUDSON, JR.,  CIRCUIT JUDGE  STATE OF ARKANSAS  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED  Appellant Jimmy Ed Lee appeals the revocation of his probation. He claims that the  Lafayette County Circuit Court erred in allowing hearsay evidence under the business­record  exception. We affirm.  On April 10, 2006, Lee pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent  to manufacture methamphetamine. Thereafter, on July 27, 2006, a judgment and disposition  order was entered sentencing Lee to five years of probation and $2900 in fees and court  costs. Lee’s conditions of probation prohibited him from committing a criminal offense and  drinking or possessing intoxicating or alcoholic beverages. Lee was also required to report  to a supervising officer and pay $50 per month until his fees and court costs were paid in  full. On January 23, 2007, the State filed a petition to revoke Lee’s probation. The petition  alleged that Lee committed an offense against the law of Arkansas, failed to report to his  probation officer as directed, and failed to pay court costs and fines. At the hearing on the  petition to revoke Lee’s probation, the State offered the testimony of two witnesses. The first  witness  was  Amanda  Cliff,  who  was  employed  with  the  Department  of  Community  Correction  as  a  probation  and  parole  officer.  Cliff  testified  that  Officer  Elmore  was  the  probation officer assigned to Lee but that Elmore was unavailable to testify because he was  in training. Cliff further testified that she had never met Lee but that she was handling all of  Elmore’s cases.  As Cliff began to testify about the documents contained in Lee’s probation file, Lee’s  counsel objected, arguing that such testimony was inadmissible hearsay. The trial court then  asked Lee’s counsel whether the records were excepted from the hearsay rule under  the  business­records exception. Lee’s counsel responded that “they might meet an exception,  but.” The trial court then ruled that while the testimony was hearsay, the business­records  exception applied.  Cliff went on to testify that the probation records indicated that Lee failed to report  to his probation officer from October 2006–January 2007; that Lee failed to pay any of the  $2900 in fines and court costs; and that Lee committed a new offense on January 14, 2007.  Based on these facts, Cliff testified that Elmore asked to have Lee’s probation revoked.  The State’s second witness was Cindy Dyer. Dyer testified that on January 14, 2007,  she was traveling on Highway 53 south of Stamps when a truck struck the side of her vehicle 2  causing her vehicle to flip over into three feet of water. After the accident, Dyer had to crawl  out of the sunroof of her vehicle. Dyer further testified that the truck that struck her did not  stop  after  the  accident;  however,  she  was  able  to  describe  the  truck  to  law­enforcement  authorities. She testified that Lee was arrested following the incident. The State then offered  into evidence a certified copy of the Lafayette County District Court docket sheet, which  reflected  that  on  February  15,  2007,  Lee  pled  guilty  to  failure  to  yield,  driving  while  intoxicated, refusal to take a breathalizer test, and leaving the scene of an accident.  After hearing all of the evidence, the trial court stated:  I certainly  find  that  your  [probation]  violation  is  proved  by  clear  and  convincing  evidence. The Petition to Revoke is true, and to committing other offenses, in fact,  other  offenses,  against  the  State  of  Arkansas.  Failure  to  report  and  failure  to  pay  without sufficient explanation or excuse, so on all three counts, the revocation is true.  The  trial  court  then  sentenced  Lee  to  twenty  years’  imprisonment  in  the  Arkansas  Department  of  Correction  and  ordered  Lee  to  pay  the  original  fines  and  court  costs  previously assessed. Lee appeals from this order.  Lee  argues  that  the  trial  court  erred  when  it  permitted  Cliff  to  testify  about  the  contents of Lee’s probation file pursuant to the business­records exception to the hearsay  rule. According to Lee, the only evidence at trial establishing Lee’s failure to report and  failure  to  pay  fines  and  court  costs  came  from  Cliff’s  inadmissible  hearsay  testimony.  Therefore, according to his argument the trial court’s ruling that Lee failed to report and pay  fines and court costs was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. In response, the  State argues that we need not address Lee’s argument because the trial court revoked Lee’s 3  probation not only because of his failure to report and to pay fines and court costs, but also  because  he  committed  new  offenses  and  there  was  independent  testimony  support  this  violation. In a probation­revocation hearing, the State must prove its case by a preponderance  of  the  evidence.  Haley  v.  State,  96  Ark.  App.  256,  ___  S.W.3d  ___  (2006).  To  revoke  probation, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant  inexcusably violated a condition of that probation or suspension. Id. (citing Ark. Code Ann.  § 5­4­309 (Repl. 2006)). The State bears the burden of proof, but need only prove that the  defendant committed one violation of the conditions. Id. 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. Id. Evidence that is insufficient for a criminal conviction may  be  sufficient  for  the  revocation  of  probation.  Id.  Because  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.  The State alleged in its petition that Lee violated three different probation conditions.  As set forth above,  the  State  only had to prove that Lee committed one violation of the  conditions of his probation. The trial court specifically stated in its oral findings that it was  revoking Lee’s revocation because Lee failed to report, failed to pay fines and court costs,  and committed new offenses against the State of Arkansas: “[S]o on all three counts, the  revocation is true.” Importantly, the State offered testimony, independent of Cliff and the  documents contained in the probation file, that supported the finding that Lee violated the 4  condition that he not commit new offenses. The independent testimony came from Cindy  Dyer—the woman who, while traveling in her vehicle, was struck by Lee’s truck, which  caused her vehicle to flip over into water. It was Dyer who testified that Lee had left the  scene of the accident that he caused. Therefore, we hold that the trial court’s revocation of  Lee’s probation, based in part on a finding that Lee committed new offenses (which was  supported by evidence independent from the testimony of Cliff), was not clearly against the  preponderance of the evidence, and we affirm. Based on this holding, we need not address  Lee’s hearsay argument.  We affirm.  MARSHALL  and MILLER, 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.