Craig DePriest v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  KAREN R. BAKER, JUDGE  DIVISION III  CACR07­712  FEBRUARY 27, 2008  CRAIG DEPRIEST  APPELLANT  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  APPEAL  FROM  THE  SALINE  COUNTY  CIRCUIT COURT  [NO. CR2005­655­2]  HONORABLE  GARY  M.  ARNOLD,  CIRCUIT  JUDGE  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED  This appeal arises from appellant Craig DePriest’s violation of the terms of his probation,  entered after appellant’s plea of guilty to the offense of felony non­support, he received a sentence  of 96 months with a twelve­year suspended imposition of sentence that would allow the trial court  to impose that sentence after his release if he continued to fail to provide support.   On appeal he  asserts two  points of  error:  (1)  The  trial court erred in finding that he violated the terms of his  probation; (2) The trial court erred by not exercising its discretion. Sufficient evidence supports the  trial court’s finding that appellant inexcusably failed to provide support.  Appellant’s second point  is not preserved for appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.  In revocation proceedings, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the  defendant violated a court­ordered condition of his probation.  Gossett v. State, 87 Ark. App. 317,  191 S.W.3d 548 (2004).  Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal from an order of revocation, this court will not  reverse the circuit court’s decision unless its findings are  clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id.  Furthermore, this court defers to the superior  position of the circuit court to determine questions of credibility and the weight to be given to the  evidence.  Id.  On July 24, 2006, the Saline County Circuit Court accepted appellant’s plea of guilty to the  offense of felony non­support.  Appellant was assessed court costs of $150, required to submit to  a DNA test and pay the $250 fee for that test, was fined one dollar, and placed on thirteen years’  supervised probation.  Additionally, he was ordered to pay $199.13 each month toward his total  child­support arrearage of $31,065, and to timely make the weekly payments of $120, as he had  agreed to in an earlier proceeding.  On September 20, 2006, the State petitioned to revoke his probation based upon his failure  to make any payments toward his child support obligations and for failure to report to his probation  officer after his intake interview with Linda Jaggers on July 24, 2006.  Jaggers testified that she had  specifically discussed with appellant that he was required to pay the amount of $199.13 monthly  toward the arrearage and that this amount was in addition to his weekly payment obligations.  Terry  Dailey, with the Office of Child Support Enforcement, testified that appellant had made no payments  subsequent to his conviction, and that the additional arrearage during the July to September time  period was approximately $1,000.  Appellant testified that he had not made any payments because he had not worked and that  he had reported by telephone to his probation officer because he did not have a driver’s license due  to his conviction for non­support.  He also stated that he was trying to find a job and that he lived  far away from the probation office and could not drive or walk there.  He also asserted that he was  currently working making decent  money and had agreed  prior  to the revocation hearing that he ­2­  would be able to pay $5,000 toward the arrearage within sixty days.  He explained that his new  employer was generously loaning him money toward that sum.  Although appellant asked the court to excuse his failure to pay support upon his not working  and not having a license, he provided no evidence of employment applications, rejections, or reasons  for  those  rejections.  He  offered  no  testimony supporting  his  general assertion that  the  lack  of a  driver’s  license  prevented  his  employment.    He  presented  no  evidence  that  he  could  not  work  because of illness or other reasonable circumstance.  Based upon the evidence presented, the trial  court ruled that appellant had violated the conditions of his probation by failing to pay as ordered,  both against the arrearage and current obligations, as of the date of the petition.  Based upon the  evidence, we find no error in the trial court’s finding that appellant had violated a condition of his  probation and affirm.  Appellant  also  argues  that  the  circuit  court  erred  by  not  exercising  its  discretion  at  sentencing, alleging that the court’s comments made at the start of the hearing showed that the court  arbitrarily rejected probation as an option before the revocation hearing began. His argument is not  preserved for appellate review.  Arguments may not be raised on appeal, even constitutional ones,  that were not first brought to the attention of the trial court.  Thomas v. State, 370 Ark. 70, ___  S.W.3d ___ (2007).  Appellant did not raise any objection to the court’s statements at the time they  were made.  Accordingly, the challenge is not preserved.  Affirmed.  GRIFFEN  and VAUGHT, JJ., agree. ­3­ 

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.