Patrick v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 541
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CACR10-73
Opinion Delivered JUNE 30, 2010
TRACY PATRICK
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2005-1133]
V.
HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR.,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge
In 2006, appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced
to seventy-two months’ supervised probation, accompanied by an imposition of fines and
costs in the amount of $2,750 to be paid at the rate of fifty dollars per month beginning
September 1, 2006. Subsequently, the State filed a petition to revoke, alleging that appellant
violated the conditions of his probation by (1) failing to pay fines and costs as directed; (2)
failing to report to probation as directed; (3) failing to pay probation fees; (4) failing to notify
sheriff and probation office of current address and employment; and (5) departing from
approved residence without permission.
After a hearing in October 2009, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and
sentenced appellant to five years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction,
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 541
followed by a five-year suspended imposition of sentence, finding that appellant violated the
conditions of his probation by (1) failing to pay fines and costs as directed; (2) failing to report
to probation as directed; (3) moving out of the jurisdiction without permission; and (4) failing
to pay probation fees as directed.
Appellant’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to be relieved as counsel,
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule
4-3(k)(1) (2010), asserting that there is no nonfrivolous argument to be made in support of
an appeal. The clerk of this court furnished appellant a certified copy of his counsel’s brief and
motion to be relieved, informing appellant that he had the right to file pro se points for
reversal. Appellant has not filed any pro se points.
As there are no other adverse rulings to discuss, the sole issue is whether there was
sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s revocation of appellant’s probation. On appeal
of a revocation, our review is directed toward determining whether the trial court’s findings
are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Haley v. State, 96 Ark. App. 256, 240
S.W.3d 615 (2006). In order to revoke the terms of probation, the State must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his probation.
Costes v. State, 103 Ark. App. 171, 287 S.W.3d 639 (2008). Whether this standard is met is
determined largely by questions of credibility and the weight to be given to the testimony,
and we defer to the trial court’s superior position with regard to those issues. Jones v. State,
355 Ark. 630, 144 S.W.3d 254 (2004). After evaluating the record under the proper standard
-2-
CACR10-73
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 541
of review, we hold that the revocation of Patrick’s probation was not clearly against the
preponderance of the evidence. As such, we affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s motion
to be relieved.
Affirmed.
R OBBINS and B AKER, JJ., agree.
-3-
CACR10-73
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.
