Paul Kaehne v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  SARAH J. HEFFLEY, JUDGE  DIVISION II  CA CR 07­285  PAUL KAEHNE  January 16, 2008  APPELLANT  V. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF  GREENE COUNTY  [NO. CR­04­335]  STATE OF ARKANSAS  HONORABLE DAVID N. LASER,  JUDGE  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE RELIEVED  GRANTED  On April 5, 2005, appellant Paul Kaehne pled guilty to the offenses of commercial burglary  and theft of property, both class C felonies.  He was placed on probation for five years and ordered  to spend thirty days in jail, to complete 120 hours of community service, and pay a fine of $1,000.  On March 1, 2006, the State filed a petition to revoke alleging that appellant had violated the  terms of his probation by committing the new crimes of commercial burglary and theft of property,  obstructing governmental operations, public intoxication, and shoplifting, and by absconding from  the State of Arkansas and failing to report to his probation officer.  After a hearing, the trial court  revoked appellant’s probation on grounds that appellant had left the State without permission, that  he had failed to report to his probation officer, and that he had committed the offenses of obstructing  governmental operations, public intoxication, and shoplifting.  As a result, appellant was sentenced to cumulative terms of thirty months in a regional correction facility to be followed by a suspended  imposition of sentence of four years.  Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 Ark. 738 (1967), and Rule 4­3(j) of the Rules of the  Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the  ground that this appeal is wholly without merit.  This motion was accompanied by a brief listing all  adverse rulings with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for  reversal.  The appellant was provided a copy of counsel’s brief and notified of his right to file a list  of points within thirty days.  Appellant has chosen not to do so.  From our review of the entire record,  we agree that this appeal is wholly without merit, and we affirm the revocation decision and grant  counsel’s motion to be relieved.  There were only two adverse rulings in this case.  The first was the trial court’s decision to  revoke appellant’s probation.  In order to revoke probation or a suspension, the trial court must find  by a  preponderance  of the  evidence  that  the  defendant  inexcusably violated  a  condition  of  that  probation or suspension.  Peterson v. State, 81 Ark. App. 226, 100 S.W.3d 66 (2003).  The State  bears the burden of proof but need only prove that the defendant committed one violation of the  conditions.  Richardson v. State, 85 Ark. App. 347, 157 S.W.3d 536 (2004).  We do not reverse a  trial court’s findings on appeal unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.  Sisk  v. State, 81 Ark. App. 276, 101 S.W.3d 248 (2003).  There was evidence offered at the hearing that appellant did not report on April 7, 2005, for  the intake session with his probation officer, but that he did finally report on April 11.  His probation  officer  gave  him  a  temporary  permit  to  travel  to  West  Virginia  where  his  mother  lived  on  the  condition that he report back to the probation officer on May 23.  Appellant reported on that date ­2­  CACR 07­285  but was not given another permit to travel out of state.  Appellant failed to report in June or in any  of the months thereafter.  He was arrested in Ohio on February 26, 2006, and extradited to Arkansas.  Charges of commercial burglary and theft of property were pending against appellant at the  time of the hearing.  In this regard, appellant was accused of breaking into a car lot and stealing a  vehicle, keys, and title papers.  Appellant admitted at the hearing that during his probation he had pled  guilty to charges of obstructing governmental operations, public intoxication, and shoplifting.  Although proof of only one violation is required, none of the trial court’s findings are clearly  against the preponderance of the evidence.  There was ample evidence that appellant violated his  probation by failing to  report, by absconding from the  State,  and by committing the offenses of  obstructing governmental operations, public intoxication, and shoplifting.  At sentencing, appellant asked that he be given twenty­four months in a regional correctional  facility.  Instead, the trial court sentenced appellant to thirty months in prison.  This sentence was  within the range of punishment for class C felonies.  Ark. Code Ann. § 5­4­401(a)(4) (Repl. 2006).  There was no error.  Affirmed; motion granted.  HART and MILLER, JJ., agree. ­3­  CACR 07­285  ­4­  CACR 07­285

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.