Court of Appeals

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 608

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No.

 CR-24-124

rOBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

This is an appeal from the Yell County Circuit Court’s revocation of appellant Ricky Bradsher’s (“Bradsher’s”) suspended imposition of sentence (“SIS”) for battery and resulting sentence of 180 months in the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) to run consecutively to the fifteen years he received on other charges.  Bradsher argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in revoking his SIS because the State did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he inexcusably violated the terms and conditions of his SIS.  We affirm.

I.  Background Facts

On February 14, 2019, Bradsher pleaded guilty in the Yell County Circuit Court to charges related to the stabbing of his ex-wife, Sabreana Robertson (“Robertson”). Their two minor children, MC1 and MC2, witnessed the attack on their mother.  Pursuant to a plea agreement, Bradsher pleaded guilty to one count each of first-degree battery, violation of a domestic-protection order, endangering the welfare of a minor, and aggravated assault. For the convictions of violation of a domestic protection order, endangering the welfare of a minor, and aggravated assault, the circuit court sentenced Bradsher to an aggregate fifteen-year prison term; a $1,500 fine; and court costs. For the first-degree-battery conviction, the circuit court imposed a ten-year SIS.  When Bradsher entered his guilty plea, he acknowledged in writing that one of the conditions of his SIS was that he was to have “no contact with [the] victim or her family[.]” This specific condition was reaffirmed in the conditions of SIS signed by the circuit court and acknowledged and signed by Bradsher.

Following Bradsher’s 2019 conviction and incarceration, he sent letters on April 11 and April 13, 2022, addressed to MC1 and MC2—the minor children present when he stabbed their mother—at the post-office-box address where Robertson received her mail, which was in Bradsher’s stepfather’s name. The State subsequently filed a petition seeking to revoke Bradsher’s SIS alleging that he violated the court’s no-contact order with regard to the victim or her family. 

At the revocation hearing, Robertson testified that she shared a post-office box with Bradsher’s stepfather, and at that address, she had received letters from Bradsher addressed to her two minor children, MC1 and MC2, who she adopted as a single parent in 2021. Robertson said that Bradsher had sent letters “five or more” times, and she identified two of the letters that had postmarks dated April 11 and April 13, 2022.  Robertson testified that both of her children were victims of the same incident she was and that the letters from Bradsher frightened her.

At the hearing, Bradsher acknowledged that he had received prison sentences for violating the domestic-protective order, endangering the welfare of a minor, and aggravated assault, with an additional ten years’ SIS for a first-degree-battery conviction.  Bradsher maintained, however, that he did not realize his children were “actual victims.”  Bradsher also claimed that he “wasn’t aware that [he] couldn’t contact [his] own children through [his] stepfather’s P.O. box.” Bradsher claimed that he interpreted the sentencing order entered in this case to mean that he could have “no contact with the victim,” meaning only Robertson.  On cross-examination, Bradsher admitted that, during his plea colloquy with the circuit court, he went over the guilty-plea statement that set out the terms of his SIS, which included that he was to have no contact “with [Robertson] or her family.” Bradsher also claimed that the phrase “with [the] victim or her family” contained in the circuit court’s SIS conditions was “kind of unclear” but admitted that the children are part of Robertson’s family. 

Bradsher contends he contacted MC1 and MC2 because while incarcerated, he received notice of an adoption hearing that stated if he did not contact his children within one year, his parental rights would be terminated.  Furthermore, Bradsher argued that the adoption proceeding was a “setup” by Robertson so that he could not prevent her single-parent adoption of MC1 and MC2. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court revoked Bradsher’s SIS, finding that the State had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he had willfully violated the special condition of his SIS that he have no contact with the victim or her family.  Accordingly, the court sentenced Bradsher to fifteen years for the battery offense to run consecutively to the time he was already serving in the ADC for the other three charges.  The sentencing order was filed on November 13, 2023, and Bradsher filed a timely notice of appeal.  This appeal followed.

II.  Standard of Review

The State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his or her probation.  Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2023). A circuit court’s decision to revoke probation will be upheld on appeal unless the decision is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Bohannon v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 434, 439 S.W.3d 735.

III.  Discussion

            For his sole point on appeal, Bradsher argues that the circuit court erred in revoking his SIS because the conditions of suspension failed to specify that his children were included in the prohibition from contacting “the victim or her family,” and the sentencing order prohibited contact only with the victim.  We disagree.

In revocation proceedings, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant violated the terms of his suspended sentence as alleged in the revocation  petition, and this court will not reverse the circuit court’s decision to revoke a suspended sentence unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Mathis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 49, 616 S.W.3d 274. The State need only show that the appellant committed one violation to sustain a revocation. Id.; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(d). Because the determination of a preponderance of the evidence turns on questions of credibility and the weight to be given testimony, appellate courts defer to the circuit court’s superior position for assessing these factors. Id.

Here, Bradsher admits he contacted MC1 and MC2; however, he argues that reversal of his revocation is required because the conditions of suspension were “unclear” and not specific enough for him to conclude that his children were included within the court’s directive not to have any contact with Robertson “or her family.”  However, the circuit court did not accept Bradsher’s excuse for his noncompliance and, instead, held that Bradsher inexcusably violated a condition of his SIS.  In revocation proceedings, the State must only present evidence of noncompliance.  Stewart v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 306, 550 S.W.3d 916.  It is then the defendant’s burden to present a reasonable excuse for this noncompliance, and the circuit court had the discretion to either accept or reject Bradsher’s excuses for his noncompliance.  Id. 

Bradsher pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a minor because MC1 and MC2 were present when he stabbed their mother.  On February 14, 2019, Bradsher signed a “no contest plea statement” agreeing to plead guilty to first-degree battery; a protection-order violation; endangering the welfare of the minor; and aggravated assault with the recommendation that he have “no contact with victim or her family.”  On the same day, the circuit court signed and filed conditions of suspension, placing Bradsher on SIS for a period of 120 months on the charge of first-degree battery, with the special condition that he have “no contact with victim or her family.”  The conditions were signed and dated by Bradsher with an acknowledgment that he understood the terms and conditions of the SIS.  Accordingly, we find unpersuasive Bradsher’s argument that it was merely “implied” he could not contact MC1 and MC2.    

Furthermore, Bradsher testified at the revocation hearing that he received the conditions of suspension and had gone over those with his attorney prior to entering his guilty plea; that the court asked him during the taking of the plea if he understood the conditions, to which he responded in the affirmative; and Bradsher told the circuit court he did not have any questions regarding the conditions of suspension.  The purpose of providing conditions of suspension or probation is to prevent confusion on the probationer’s part.  See Costes v. State, 103 Ark. App. 171, 287 S.W.3d 639 (2008).  Bradsher also acknowledged at the hearing that the conditions prohibited him from contacting Robertson and “her family” and expressly admitted that MC1 and MC2 are part of Robertson’s family.  Thus, because we do not find that the circuit court’s order revoking Bradsher’s SIS was against the preponderance of the evidence, we affirm.

IV.  Conclusion

            For the above-referenced reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s revocation of Bradsher’s SIS for first-degree battery.

Affirmed.

Thyer and Hixson, JJ., agree.

Phillip A. McGough, P.A., by: Phillip A. McGough, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.