Reed v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 502
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CACR10-138
EUGENE TROY REED, JR.
APPELLANT
Opinion Delivered
APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-02-75]
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
JUNE 16, 2010
HONORABLE BARBARA HALSEY,
JUDGE,
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge
Appellant Eugene Troy Reed, Jr., asserts that insufficient evidence supports the
revocation of his suspended imposition of sentence by the Mississippi County Circuit Court.
The court found that he had violated the terms and conditions of his suspended imposition
of sentence from an underlying burglary conviction. Upon revocation he was sentenced to
five years’ incarceration in the Arkansas Department of Correction with an additional five
years’ suspended imposition of sentence. We find no error and affirm.
When we review a trial court’s findings that an appellant violated the terms and
conditions of his or her suspended sentence, those findings are upheld unless they are clearly
1
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 502
against a preponderance of the evidence. Ramsey v. State, 60 Ark. App. 206, 959 S.W.2d 765
(1998). Evidence that is insufficient to support a criminal conviction may be sufficient to
support a revocation. Id. We defer to the trial court’s superior position to resolve matters of
witness credibility and the weight to be given testimony. McLeod v. State, 2010 Ark. 95 (per
curiam). Furthermore, a trial judge is not required to believe the testimony of any witness,
particularly that of the accused since he or she is the person most interested in the outcome
of the proceedings. Wilson v. State, 95 Ark. App. 394, 237 S.W.3d 473 (2006).
In this case, testimony established that on May 26, 2009, Christine Merritt was
watching television in the residence she shared with her father located at 2108 Marguerite in
Blytheville. She became alarmed when dogs began barking and she heard loud noises,
including banging at the back door. She grabbed her cell phone, called her father, and ran
outside to hide. Her father, Jimmy Merritt, who was not at home at the time, immediately
called the police and “raced” homeward. Mr. Merritt later testified that he found muddy
footprints on his back door, and that the door jamb was broken. The Merritts’ testimony
established that an attempt to break into their home was near completion when abandoned.
Mr. Merritt also testified that, when he stopped at the intersection a block from his
house, he saw appellant and another person run across his backyard, jump his fence, and run
toward a residence on Rose Street. He explained that he had an unimpeded view of his
backyard and the open area between it and the house at 2119 Rose Street. Mr. Merritt
flagged down Officer Hicks and described the two men and told the officers that the men
who had jumped his fence had stopped at a car by the Rose Street house and talked with a
-22
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 502
third person who was standing there, and that the third person ran into the house.
Officer Hicks arrived at the Rose Street address, saw the men Mr. Merritt had
described, observed that they had grass and leaves in their hair, and noticed that they were
perspiring as if they had recently exerted themselves. He arrested the men after speaking with
them briefly. When the third man was brought out of the house, he was arrested by Officer
Hicks as the man who matched the description given to him by Mr. Merritt and, who was
located in the place identified by Mr. Merritt.
Appellant denied being involved. He testified that the owner of the Rose Street house
and another man were standing by a blue car when two other men came running around the
side of the house. Appellant also testified about the color of the t-shirts worn by the two
men, which he relied upon in refuting his involvement. He alleged that the man who ran into
the house was wearing a white t-shirt, but when he was later brought out he was wearing a
black one that he had been carrying in his hand when he went in.
The trial court was entitled to disbelieve appellant’s testimony and credit the testimony
of Mr. Merritt. The trial court determined that sufficient credible evidence showed that
appellant attempted to burglarize the Merritts’ residence, and in so doing violated the terms
of his suspended sentence. We hold that the trial court’s determination was not clearly against
the preponderance of the evidence.
Affirmed.
KINARD and BROWN, JJ., agree.
-33
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.
