Torrence v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No.
CACR08-1192
DEMETRIUS TORRENCE,
APPELLANT
Opinion Delivered 13
MAY 2009
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR02-1580 & CR05-323]
V.
THE HONORABLE BARRY SIMS,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
D. P. MARSHALL JR. , Judge
The circuit court placed Demetrius Torrence on probation in two separate
cases. In the first case, the circuit court found Torrence guilty of three counts of
committing a terroristic act and sentenced him to five years’ probation. In the other
case, Torrence pleaded guilty to one count of possession of drug paraphernalia and one
count of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The circuit court sentenced
him to three years’ probation. The State petitioned to revoke Torrence’s probated
sentences, alleging that he had failed to report, failed to pay his supervision fees, and
tested positive for marijuana—all violations of his probation conditions. After a
hearing, the circuit court revoked Torrence’s probation in both cases. Torrence
appeals, arguing that the evidence supporting revocation was insufficient because the
State did not prove that his violations were inexcusable.
To revoke, the circuit court had to find by a preponderance of the evidence that
Torrence had inexcusably failed to comply with one or more conditions of his
probation. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309 (Repl. 2006); Harris v. State, 98 Ark. App. 264,
267, 254 S.W.3d 789, 791–92 (2007). “Once the State introduces evidence of
non-compliance in a revocation hearing, the defendant then bears the burden of going
forward with some reasonable excuse for non-compliance.” Anglin v. State, 98 Ark.
App. 34, 36, 249 S.W.3d 836, 838 (2007). We defer to the circuit court’s evaluation
of the witnesses’ credibility and conflicting evidence. Wilcox v. State, 99 Ark. App.
220, 222, 258 S.W.3d 785, 787 (2007).
On appeal, Torrence admits that the State proved that he violated at least one
of the conditions of his probation in each of the two cases. He argues, however, that
the State failed to present evidence that his violations were without reasonable excuse.
For example, Torrence argues that “the State failed to prove that he did not have a
valid medical reason for using marijuana.” But this was not the State’s burden. Anglin,
98 Ark. App. at 36, 249 S.W.3d at 838. Once the State proved that Torrence tested
positive for marijuana, failed to report, and failed to pay his supervision fees, it was up
to Torrence to provide some reasonable excuse for his failure to comply with those
conditions. Ibid. At the hearing, Torrence testified that several people close to him
had died, that he was homeless for a period, and that he “totally lost [his] mind.”
When asked by the prosecutor whether he thought that these bad things excused him
-2-
from complying with his probation conditions, Torrence blamed his failure to comply
on “mental stress.”
The circuit court had to judge Torrence’s credibility and decide whether his
explanations were reasonable in the circumstances, thereby excusing his
noncompliance. Wilcox, 99 Ark. App. at 222, 258 S.W.3d at 787. The court’s
determination that Torrence’s explanations were not reasonable and that his probation
should therefore be revoked was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
Anglin, 98 Ark. App. at 36, 249 S.W.3d at 838.
Affirmed.
VAUGHT, C.J., and BAKER, J., 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.
