Aquilino v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 516
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
CACR10-33
No.
Opinion Delivered
ANGELA AQUILINO
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
June 23, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2006-1210]
HONORABLE DAVID REYNOLDS,
JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Appellant pled guilty to criminal attempt to procure prescription drugs by fraud and
was placed on probation, subject to a number of conditions, for a period of two years.
During that period, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s probation, alleging, inter
alia, that she had violated the conditions by failing to pay fines and probation fees and failing
to abstain from the use of controlled substances. After a hearing, her probation was revoked
and she was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial
court clearly erred in finding that she willfully and inexcusably violated the conditions of her
probation. We affirm.
In revocation cases, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of her probation. Graves v. State,
2010 Ark. App. 32. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal from a
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 516
revocation, we will affirm unless the trial court’s findings are clearly against the preponderance
of the evidence. Anglin v. State, 98 Ark. App. 34, 249 S.W.3d 836 (2007). We defer to the
superior position of the trial court on matters of credibility of the witnesses and weight to be
given to the evidence. Tyson v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 856.
Appellant concedes that evidence was presented of each alleged violation, including
admissions of each by appellant during her testimony. However, she argues that the State
failed to prove that the violations were inexcusable because it failed to affirmatively show that
she could afford to make the required payments and because she testified that her multiple
positive drug screens were the result of her using leftover drugs from previous prescriptions
to alleviate back pain resulting from a former electrical shock injury. We cannot agree.
Once the State introduces evidence of noncompliance in a revocation hearing, the
defendant then bears the burden of going forward with some reasonable excuse for the
noncompliance. Anglin, supra. Here, appellant admittedly failed to make payments toward
her fines and fees, and she offered nothing in the way of an excuse. Moreover, she admittedly
tested positive for opiates and amphetamines, but she offered no evidence, medical or
otherwise, to support her claim that she had previously been shocked, that she had been
prescribed opiates, or that such medication was required for her current condition. Having
admitted the violations, her excuses were wholly a matter of credibility. We cannot say that
the trial court clearly erred because it did not believe appellant’s testimony.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
-2-
CACR10-33
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.