Goodman v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 764
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CACR10-524
CONYA GOODMAN
Opinion Delivered
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
NOVEMBER 10, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE DREW
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-03-255-1, CR-04-83-1, CR05-169-1]
HONORABLE SAM POPE, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge
On September 12, 2005, Conya Goodman entered a guilty plea to three counts of
violating the Arkansas Hot Check Law. The Drew County Circuit Court sentenced
Goodman to ten years’ supervised probation and, as one of the conditions of her probation,
ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $7,373.61. On November 9, 2006, the State
filed a petition to revoke Goodman’s probation for failure to pay restitution as ordered. The
State filed an amended revocation petition on January 19, 2007, alleging that in addition to
the failure to pay restitution, Goodman had also failed to submit to drug or alcohol testing,
failed to report to her probation officer, failed to pay $450 in court costs, and failed to pay a
$250 DNA fee, all of which were stated conditions of the September 12, 2005 order and
conditions of supervised probation. At the February 1, 2010 revocation hearing, Scott
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 764
McDonald, a probation officer with the Arkansas Department of Community Correction,
testified that Goodman missed a large number of meetings prior to her case being assigned to
him in May 2009, and that he had not met with her since being assigned to her case. Further,
Goodman had not contacted his office to explain why she was unable to meet with her
probation officer. Goodman also testified that the last meeting she remembered was in July
2008. Evidence was introduced at the hearing showing that restitution had been paid in full
through a bond posted by Goodman’s friends and family after her arrest on the probationrevocation charge. The State also introduced into evidence eighteen checks written by
Goodman after she was placed on probation as evidence of a new offense. The circuit court
granted the State’s petition based on violations of condition number 1, committing new
offenses, and condition number 10, failing to meet with the probation officer. Goodman was
sentenced to two years in a regional punishment facility and given an additional two years’
suspended sentence following her release. On appeal, Goodman argues that the trial court
erred in revoking her probation where the revocation was based in part upon allegations not
set forth in the petition to revoke, asserting that it was a denial of due process to do so because
she received no notice that the subsequent hot-check violations would be in issue. We affirm.
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. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d) (Supp. 2009); Harris v. State, 98 Ark.
App. 264, 254 S.W.3d 789 (2007). The State bears the burden of proof but need only prove
2
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 764
that the defendant committed one violation of the conditions. Id. We do not reverse a trial
court’s findings on appeal unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
Id.
In its revocation petition, the State alleged that Goodman had violated the written
terms and conditions of her suspended sentence by failing to pay restitution, failing to submit
to drug or alcohol testing, failing to report to her probation officer, failing to pay $450 in
court costs, and failing to pay a $250 DNA fee. While the State presented proof of numerous
probation violations, it was only necessary that the State prove one violation. See id. We
affirm Goodman’s revocation because she, by her own admission, failed repeatedly to meet
with her probation officer, and we cannot say that the circuit court’s decision on this ground
is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Because the State need prove only one
violation, we need not address Goodman’s other argument.
Affirmed.
VAUGHT, C.J., and GLOVER, 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.
