 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strickland v. State5/12/2004
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Preston Ray Strickland appeals from the circuit court's order revoking his suspended sentence. He argues that the circuit court erred in revoking his suspended sentence because the State did not present sufficient evidence that he violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence. We affirm.
In 1998, appellant pled guilty to theft of property and was sentenced to serve ten years in the Arkansas Department of Correction, with six-and-one-half years suspended. The conditions of his suspension prohibited him, inter alia, from violating any state law or from possessing or using narcotics or any controlled substance prohibited by law.
On February 18, 2003, the State filed a revocation petition, alleging that appellant violated the terms of his suspended sentence by possessing methamphetamine. The testimony adduced at the hearing was as follows. On February 11, 2003, Sebastian County Deputy Sheriff Alan Marx saw appellant and another person, later identified as Kevin Watson, acting suspiciously in a feed store. Marx was in uniform. He stated that when the men saw him, they asked whether the store had any pepper plants. According to Marx, when they were told that the plant was not in season, "they turned around and practically ran out the door." Marx followed the men as they left and observed the vehicle, driven by appellant, travel the wrong way on Highway 71. Marx followed them to a convenience store across the road and made contact with them.
Marx testified that appellant was nervous, shaking, and stuttering. Appellant explained to Marx that he was scared because he had gone down the highway in the wrong direction. Appellant consented to have his car searched. In the back seat, behind the driver's seat, was a jacket. In the inside pocket of the jacket, Marx found a coffee filter with red phosphorus and a needle containing what was later determined to be methamphetamine residue. In the same jacket, he also found a receipt for a gallon of toluene. Finally, Marx found a gallon of toluene in appellant's car. Appellant also denied to Marx that the toluene belonged to him.
Marx informed appellant of his Miranda rights, and appellant thereafter volunteered information. Appellant denied ownership of the jacket, and said that he did not know where it had come from. He stated that he was giving Watson a ride to the feed store, but he did not know why. Due to appellant's agitated and nervous demeanor, Marx believed that appellant was under the influence of "something." Appellant passed two field-sobriety tests, but failed a horizontal-gaze nystagmus test. Marx stated that appellant told him that he had used methamphetamine earlier that day. Marx further stated that he would not be willing to change his belief if appellant's drug tests results were shown to be negative.
Marx also testified that Watson had red stains on his hands and that the skin was peeling off of Watson's hands. Watson told Marx that the stains were Kool-Aid stains.
After appellant was taken to the sheriff's office, Deputy Jason Mikles observed that appellant was shaking and agitated. Mikles also observed several track marks on appellant's body. Mikles performed a drug test on appellant at approximately 4:00 p.m. on the day of his arrest. According to Mikles, appellant told him that he had used methamphetamine that morning. However, the drug screening indicated negative results for the presence of amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, and phencyclidine.
Appellant testified that he was a shaky person, and that he was shaking because he had gone the wrong way down the highway.
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|