Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 25 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CACR09-562 Opinion Delivered January 13, 2010 HO VAN NGUYEN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NOS. CR-2006-295-1; CR-2006-V. 1799-1] HONORABLE ROBIN GREEN, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge This is an appeal from the revocation of appellant’s probation in two cases. After a hearing, appellant was found to have had methamphetamine in his possession during the probationary periods. His probation was therefore revoked and he was remanded to the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant concedes on appeal that revocation of probation and incarceration upon a finding that the conditions thereof have been violated are in fact authorized by statute, and he does not argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he violated the conditions of his probation. Instead, appellant simply asserts that imprisonment was too harsh a penalty under the circumstances when a less severe disposition was available. We affirm.
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 25 Appellant does not contend that the punishment imposed on revocation was cruel and unusual. Appellant simply asserts that, because no drugs were found on his person, and because there was no evidence that he was selling drugs, the trial court should merely have ordered him to attend a drug-treatment program. Therefore, he argues, the trial court erred in sentencing him to imprisonment for violating the conditions of his probation. We disagree. Appellant’s prior convictions were for possession of controlled substances, simultaneous possession of controlled substances and firearms, and domestic battery. In light of these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing appellant to imprisonment after he violated the conditions of his probation by again possessing controlled substances. The trial court was not required to wait and see if appellant would again commit another crime before ordering incarceration. See Ross v. State, 22 Ark. App. 232, 738 S.W.2d 112 (1987). Furthermore, in light of appellant’s failure to present reasoned argument or legal authority for his assertion that his punishment was so harsh under the circumstances to constitute an abuse of discretion warranting reversal, we view his argument as being, in essence, a plea for clemency that should be addressed to the executive branch. See Hughes v. State, 264 Ark. 723, 574 S.W.2d 888 (1978). Affirmed. H ART and GLADWIN, JJ., agree. -2-
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.