Background
Craig Criswell pleaded guilty in 2020 to possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. He received a 144-month suspended imposition of sentence, subject to payment of fines, fees, and costs in monthly installments and a condition that he commit no imprisonable offenses.
In 2024, the State sought revocation, alleging a new offense and nonpayment. The circuit court found the evidence did not connect Criswell to paraphernalia found during a 2023 police search. But payment records showed that he owed $1,985 and had paid only $80. The court revoked his suspended sentence for inexcusably failing to pay and imposed concurrent seven-year prison terms.
The Court’s Holding
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Once the State introduced evidence of nonpayment, Criswell bore the burden of producing a reasonable excuse. Although he testified about an eviction and time in jail, he did not explain why he failed to make payments from the 2020 sentencing through the filing of the revocation petition in January 2024.
The court held that the circuit court was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence in finding that Criswell had inexcusably failed to pay his court-ordered financial obligations. That single proven violation was sufficient to support revocation.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence of nonpayment shifts the burden of production to the defendant to offer a reasonable excuse.
- A defendant must provide an explanation for the failure to pay, not merely identify hardship-related circumstances.
- One inexcusably violated condition of a suspended sentence supports revocation.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that in Arkansas revocation proceedings, payment records can establish a violation unless the defendant substantiates an inability to pay or another reasonable excuse. General testimony about eviction or incarceration, without explaining the broader period of nonpayment, may not satisfy that burden.