Eddie L. Matlock v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
D. P. MARSHALL JR., JUDGE
DIVISION II
CACR07-1094
7 May 2008
EDDIE L. MATLOCK,
v.
APPELLANT
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
AN APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR2001-2773]
THE HONORABLE JOHN W.
LANGSTON, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
In 2001, Eddie Matlock was found guilty of second-degree battery and
sentenced to five years’ probation. In 2003, he pleaded guilty to violating his
probation conditions. The circuit court sentenced him to five more years’ probation.
The court revoked Matlock’s probation again in 2007, this time for using marijuana
and failing to report to his probation officer. Matlock challenges both grounds for
revocation as being clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, he
argues that the State failed to prove that his violations were inexcusable.
Matlock’s probation conditions required him to obey all laws and submit to drug
screens. His probation officer testified at the revocation hearing that Matlock tested
positive for marijuana four times between August 2005 and January 2006. Matlock
testified that he had never used marijuana. He explained that he spent time at a pool
hall where other people may have been smoking marijuana, and this exposure was the
only possible cause of his positive test results.
The issue was credibility.
The circuit court did not believe Matlock’s
explanation for his four positive drug tests during a five-month period. We defer to
the circuit court’s superior position to evaluate all the witnesses’ credibility and decide
the weight of all the evidence. Bedford v. State, 96 Ark. App. 38, 40, 237 S.W.3d 516,
517 (2006). The court’s revocation of Matlock’s probation for using marijuana was not
clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Richardson v. State, 85 Ark. App.
347, 350, 157 S.W.3d 536, 538 (2004).
The State needed to prove only one ground to revoke Matlock’s probation.
Ibid. We therefore do not address the failure-to-report ground.
Affirmed.
PITTMAN, C.J., and ROBBINS, J., 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.
