Larry Donnell Reed v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
D.P. MARSHALL JR., JUDGE
DIVISION II
CACR07-1244
23 April 2008
LARRY DONNELL REED,
v.
AN APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
APPELLANT
[CR2006-1776]
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE
THE HONORABLE BARRY ALAN
SIMS, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Larry Reed was sentenced to five years’ probation for robbery and misdemeanor theft
of property. A few months later, he pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his probation and
was put on probation for five more years. The circuit court later granted the State’s petition
to revoke the second term of probation. It concluded that Reed did not report to his
probation officer as required and failed to pay his supervision fees. Reed argues on appeal that
his failures were excusable because he was in jail. We hold, however, that the circuit court’s
conclusion that Reed inexcusably violated the terms of his probation was not clearly against
the preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d) (Repl. 2006); Richardson
v. State, 85 Ark. App. 347, 350, 157 S.W.3d 536, 538 (2004).
At the revocation hearing, Reed’s probation officer testified that Reed failed to report
to her after 12 December 2006. Then the record keeper at the Pulaski County Regional
Detention Facility testified that Reed was in that jail from 16 October 2006 to 8 December
2006 and again for most of January 2007. The record keeper also testified that Reed did not
attend a required weekend jail program and was re-jailed on 11 May 2007. Reed’s testimony
contradicted some of this evidence. He told the court that he remembered reporting in
January and February 2007 and again on March 20, the date he was supposed to attend the
jail program. He admitted, however, that he was not in jail during March or April 2007, and
that he did not report in April. Reed did not present evidence—other than his disputed
testimony—to explain his failure to report during the three months that he was not in jail.
Reed told the court that he had called his probation officer in late April 2007 to make
arrangements to pay his fees, but he returned to jail before carrying out those arrangements.
We defer to the circuit court’s resolution of contradictions in the evidence and
credibility determinations. Bradley v. State, 347 Ark. 518, 521, 65 S.W.3d 874, 876 (2002).
Here, the court was not persuaded by Reed’s testimony. Especially after considering the
State’s lower burden of proof in revocation proceedings, we hold that the circuit court’s
revocation decision was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Richardson, 85
Ark. App. at 350, 157 S.W.3d at 538.
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.
