Opinion
CACR04-1347
Opinion Delivered January 11, 2006
Appeal from Union County Circuit Court, [No. CR-2003-473], Hon. Hamilton H. Singleton, Judge, Affirmed.
While on probation, appellant Christopher Minniefield was arrested for fleeing, resisting arrest, and obstructing governmental operations. The State filed a motion to revoke Minniefield's probation. After a hearing, the Court granted the State's petition for revocation and sentenced Minniefield to five years' imprisonment.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1), Minniefield's attorney filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, asserting that after a conscientious examination of the record, he finds this appeal to be wholly without merit. The attorney's brief contends that there were no adverse rulings to abstract and discuss except for the granting of the State's petition for revocation of probation. Although Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(2) permits Minniefield to do so, he has filed no pro se points for reversal. We find that counsel has fully complied with the requirements of Anders v. California and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(i) and affirm.
Christopher Minniefield was charged with violation of Arkansas's Hot Check Law. On October 23, 2003, Minniefield pled guilty to the charge and received five years of probation; in addition, he was ordered to pay court costs and fines and restitution in the amount of $4,441.41 to the victims. Minniefield was to make a regular payment of fifty dollars on the fifteenth of each month, beginning in January of 2004. Minniefield signed and initialed an agreement listing his conditions for probation, and some of the pertinent provisions are as follows:
1. You must not commit a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. . . .
2. You must not use, sell, distribute, or possess any controlled substance, . . . .
6. You must report as directed to a supervising officer and permit him/her to visit you in your residence, place of employment, or other property . . .
13. You must pay by money order a supervision fees [sic] of $25.00 per month to the Department of Community Correction.
14. You must pay restitution to the victim(s) listed below through the Union County Prosecutors/Restitution Office in the total amount of $4441.41, in regular monthly payments of $50 each month beginning on the 15th day of January 2004 and on the 15th day of each month thereafter until paid in full. . . .
On May 6, 2004, Tasha Richardson, an employee of the Arkansas Department of Community Corrections, testified that Minniefield first reported to his probation officer on December 8, 2003. Minniefield was instructed to return on January 8, 2004; however, he had not been back since his initial intake date. In addition, Minniefield had failed to pay his fees or restitution and had tested positive or admitted to using marijuana when he visited his probation officer on December 3, 2003.
Minniefield testified that he had failed to pay his fees because, as a painter, his income depended upon good weather and it had been cold and raining; he claimed that he could pay off the fees in a couple of months once the weather became warm. In addition, he claimed that he did not return to the probation office because he did not have reliable transportation and he is a borderline diabetic with limited walking ability. Minniefield also asserted that, on his probation intake date, he talked to a Mr. Parham, who told him that he understood Minniefield had been locked up and that he knew drugs were a problem in jail. When Mr. Parham asked if he was "dirty," Minniefield admitted that he would probably test positive for marijuana. Minniefield then signed a statement admitting to the drug use and was asked to return on January 8, 2004.
On March 3, 2004, Officer Robert Black arrested Minniefield on charges of fleeing, resisting arrest, and interfering with governmental operations. Officer Black testified that he noticed Minniefield doing a paint job on a store and approached him because he was vaguely familiar with Minniefield and believed that there was a warrant out for his arrest. When Officer Black asked Minniefield who he was, Minniefield told him that his name was Michelangelo and then told him that his name was Jones. When Officer Black radioed to his partner, who was more familiar with what Minniefield looked like, Minniefield began to back up and tossed his cup of paint at Officer Black. Paint got on Officer Black's face, arm, and uniform. Minniefield then ran and stopped at Judge Van Hook's office, where a gentleman opened the door and quickly closed it when he noticed a policeman chasing Minniefield. Minniefield then submitted and Officer Black placed him under arrest for fleeing, resisting arrest, and obstructing governmental operations by providing a false name and throwing paint on an officer.
Minniefield testified that he initially gave a false name because he was scared and did not know why the officer was approaching him. In addition, he had no desire to go back to jail. Minniefield also claimed that he simply lost control of the cup of paint and did not throw it at Officer Black. He said that he ran towards Judge Van Hook's office because he was familiar with the judge and believed that he could get help there. Minniefield also testified that the charges stemming from his March 3, 2004, arrest were disposed of when he pled guilty in front of Judge Van Hook, who gave him community service and fined him $260.
Minniefield rejected a plea deal in which he would have received five years' probation plus 120 days in the community correction center. The State also offered to dispose of an impending theft of property case if Minniefield would agree to pay $3,718.06 to Southwest Trading Company, which asserted that this was its loss as a result of the theft. Minniefield apparently refused to accept the plea agreement because he did not want to serve the 120 days in jail during his busy time at work. After the bench trial, the judge chided Minniefield for giving up a "sweetheart" plea deal and for thinking that he could "scam everybody." The judge then found that Minniefield had violated the terms and conditions of his probation and sentenced Minniefield to five years in the Department of Correction so that he could have some time to think about all of his "monumentally bad judgment calls."
An appeal was taken from this judgment, and pursuant to Anders, supra, and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1), Minniefield's attorney filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, asserting that after a conscientious examination of the record, he finds this appeal to be wholly without merit.
Minniefield's attorney is correct in asserting that the granting of the State's petition for revocation of probation is the only adverse ruling against Minniefield. In order to revoke probation, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of probation. Jared v. State, 17 Ark. App. 223, 707 S.W.2d 325 (1986). Upon appellate review, this court will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id.
In this case, there was clearly a preponderance of evidence indicating that Minniefield violated the terms of his probation. Minniefield had failed to pay his fees and fines and had not made restitution to the victims of his hot check violations. In addition, Minniefield failed to report to his probation officer as required. Also, Minniefield admitted to using marijuana. Minniefield also admitted that he pled guilty in district court to the charges of fleeing, resisting arrest, and interference with governmental operations.
There was ample evidence in this case for the trial judge to conclude that Minniefield violated the terms of his probation. The granting of the State's petition for revocation of probation was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm.
Affirmed.
ROBBINS and NEAL, JJ., agree.