Murry v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Murry v. Hobbs

    2014 Ark. 98 (Ark. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    A petition for revocation of suspended sentence was filed in 2009, alleging that appellant had failed to meet the conditions under which the sentence was suspended. Following a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked appellant's suspended imposition of sentence and sentenced him to 360 months' incarceration in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Murry v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 782. In 2013, appellant, who was incarcerated at a unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction located in Jefferson County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Jefferson County Circuit Court.

  2. Murry v. Hobbs

    2013 Ark. 29 (Ark. 2013)   Cited 11 times

    A petition for revocation of suspended sentence was filed in 2009, alleging that appellant had failed to pay court costs; had failed to notify the sheriff of appellant's current address and employment; and had been charged with burglary, theft, and first-degree criminal mischief. Following a revocation hearing, the Crittenden County Circuit Court revoked appellant's suspended imposition of sentence and sentenced him to 360 months' incarceration in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Murry v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 782. In 2011, appellant, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction by virtue of the 2005 conviction, filed in the circuit court in the county where he is incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl.

  3. Murry v. State

    2011 Ark. 343 (Ark. 2011)   Cited 9 times

    The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Murry v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 782.

  4. Horton v. State

    2018 Ark. App. 126 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Because Mr. Horton has failed to make any challenge to the remaining three alternative grounds for revocation, we must affirm. See Bedford, supra; Bovee v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 158; Murry v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 782. Affirmed.

  5. Harris v. State

    2015 Ark. App. 602 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015)

    To revoke a suspended sentence, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably violated a condition of the suspension. Murry v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 782. The State bears the burden of proof, but it need only prove that the defendant committed one violation in order to sustain the revocation.

  6. Boyd v. State

    2014 Ark. App. 336 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 4 times

    To revoke a suspended sentence, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably violated a condition of the suspension. Bedford v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 239; Murry v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 782. The State bears the burden of proof, but it need only prove that the defendant committed one violation in order to sustain the revocation.

  7. Bedford v. State

    2014 Ark. App. 239 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 12 times

    To revoke a suspended sentence, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably violated a condition of the suspension. Murry v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 782. The State bears the burden of proof, but it need only prove that the defendant committed one violation in order to sustain the revocation.

  8. Winston v. State

    2012 Ark. App. 608 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    However, appellant's failure to attack the finding that he violated his conditions by failing to pay as required is itself dispositive of this appeal. Because appellant left this independent ground for revocation unchallenged on appeal, the circuit court's revocation must be affirmed. See Pugh v. State, 351 Ark. 5, 89 S.W.3d 909 (2002); Murry v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 782; Juarez v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 752; May v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 608. Affirmed.

  9. Bovee v. State

    2011 Ark. App. 158 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    Here, appellant was also found to have drunk alcohol and to have committed terroristic threatening in violation of his conditions of suspension. Because appellant failed to challenge the trial court's alternative grounds for revoking his suspension, we must affirm. See Murry v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 782; Josenberger v. State, supra; Watlington v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 37. Affirmed.