Joshua Daniel Hall v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CACR08-617
JOSHUA DANIEL HALL
Opinion Delivered
December 3, 2008
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2003-274]
V.
HONORABLE RHONDA WOOD,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Chief Judge
The appellant pled guilty to third-degree domestic battery in February 2004 and was
placed on probation. A petition to revoke appellant’s probation was filed in December 2007,
alleging that he had violated the conditions of his probation by failing to report to his
probation officer, failing to pay fines and fees, failing to comply with drug treatment, and by
violating Arkansas law. After a hearing, the trial court found that appellant had violated the
conditions of his probation and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. On appeal,
appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that
he inexcusably violated the terms of his probation. We affirm.
Appellant does not argue that there is insufficient evidence to show that he committed
the acts that he was alleged to have committed, but instead argues that the evidence was
insufficient to show what the conditions of his probations were because the conditions of
probation attached to his original judgment and commitment order did not bear his signature.
We do not agree. There is no statutory requirement that a probationer acknowledge in
writing his receipt of the written conditions of probation, and an argument that the terms and
conditions of probation were not introduced into evidence is a procedural one that is waived
if not raised at the revocation hearing. Whitener v. State, 96 Ark. App. 354, 241 S.W.3d 779
(2006); Nelson v. State, 84 Ark. App. 373, 141 S.W.3d 900 (2004). Because appellant raises
this argument for the first time on appeal, we do not address it. Whitener v. State, supra.
Affirmed.
H ART and G RIFFEN, JJ., agree.
-2-
CACR08-617
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.
