Standing alone, this is a sufficient basis to revoke. Riley v. State, 2011 Ark.App. 511, 385 S.W.3d 355. Thus, we hold that there would be no merit to an appeal of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation.

Second, as Newton points out in his pro se points, following our remand, the circuit court imposed an additional 120 months' suspended sentence that was not pronounced at the revocation hearing and that was not included in the original sentencing order. It is apparent to us that the two errors are scrivener's errors. Riley v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 511, 385 S.W.3d 355. A circuit court can enter an order nunc pro tunc at any time to correct clerical errors in a judgment or order. Id. Accordingly, we remand in part for entry of a nunc pro tunc order to make the sentencing order reflect that the court found Newton guilty at the revocation hearing and to delete the additional 120 months' suspended sentence.

It is apparent to us that the sentencing order reflects a scrivener's error. Riley v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 511, 385 S.W.3d 355. A circuit court can enter an order nunc pro tunc at any time to correct clerical errors in a judgment or order.