Opinion
CR-23-754
05-15-2024
VICKI BASKINS APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
Lassiter & Cassinelli, by: Michael Kiel Kaiser, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att'y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE YELL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT [NO. 75SCR-18-7] HONORABLE JERRY DON RAMEY, JUDGE
Lassiter & Cassinelli, by: Michael Kiel Kaiser, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att'y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, JUDGE
Vicki Baskins appeals the Yell County Circuit Court order revoking her probation. On appeal, she argues that the circuit court erred by finding that she violated a condition of her probation. We affirm.
On July 5, 2018, Baskins was convicted of conspiracy to furnish prohibited articles, and she was sentenced to five years' probation. On April 18, 2023, the State petitioned to revoke her probation, alleging that she had violated the conditions of her probation by testing positive for alcohol, methamphetamine, and amphetamine on March 10, 2023, and failing to attend and complete referred substance-abuse treatment.
On August 3, 2023, the court held a revocation hearing. Jennifer Anderson with the Arkansas Division of Community Corrections testified that she supervised Baskins's probation beginning in December 2021. Anderson stated that on March 10, 2023, she administered a drug-and-alcohol screening and that Baskins tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and alcohol. Anderson further testified that Baskins had tested positive for alcohol or drugs on nine other occasions between April 2022 and March 2023. Anderson stated that Baskins had been instructed to complete a sobriety program but that Baskins frequently missed the meetings. Anderson explained that she then arranged for Baskins to attend an inpatient program, but Baskins did not complete the program.
Baskins then testified and admitted testing positive on the drug-and-alcohol screenings. She stated, "I'm guilty, drinking, whatever." She further stated that she has a prescription for "Tylenol 3's and Klonopins."
On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Baskin: "[Y]ou used methamphetamine and you know that's not prescribed; right?" Baskins responded, "Yes, sir." Baskins further acknowledged using methamphetamine on "several occasions" and drinking alcohol "every day" of her probation. She also admitted that she knew the probation conditions prohibited drinking alcohol. She stated, "I'm a drinker.... I'm 63 years old."
At the conclusion of the testimony, the court found that Baskins had violated her probation by using alcohol and controlled substances and by not completing the sobriety program. The court noted that Baskins admitted using alcohol on a daily basis. The court sentenced Baskins to five years' imprisonment. Baskins appeals the revocation to this court.
In probation-revocation proceedings, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer violated the terms of her probation as alleged in the revocation petition, and we will not reverse the circuit court's decision to revoke probation unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Skaggs v. State, 2023 Ark.App. 325, 670 S.W.3d 811. When multiple violations are alleged, a circuit court's revocation will be affirmed if the evidence is sufficient to establish that the appellant violated any one condition of the probation. Id. This court defers to the circuit court's determinations regarding witness credibility and the weight to be accorded testimony. Hill v. State, 2023 Ark.App. 381.
On appeal, Baskins argues that the circuit court erred by finding that she violated a probation condition. She first challenges the court's finding that she tested positive for alcohol. She argues that the evidence is insufficient because the State did not introduce the alcohol-screening results or the supervision notes confirming a positive alcohol screening.
We hold that the State presented sufficient evidence that Baskins violated a probation condition by testing positive for alcohol. Baskins admitted drinking alcohol every day during her probation. Baskins's admission, on its own, is sufficient to support the revocation. See Ingram v. State, 2009 Ark.App. 792, 363 S.W.3d 6 (holding that there was no need for the State to introduce further evidence when the appellant admitted alleged violations). We thus affirm the court's finding that Baskins violated a condition of her probation by using alcohol, and we need not address Baskins's other arguments concerning the other grounds for revocation. Vangilder v. State, 2018 Ark.App. 385, 555 S.W.3d 413.
Affirmed.
GRUBER and WOOD, JJ., agree.