{
  "id": 1675861,
  "name": "Rick PEARSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pearson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1977-12-05",
  "docket_number": "CR 77-185",
  "first_page": "513",
  "last_page": "516",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "262 Ark. 513"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "558 S.W.2d 149"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 319,
    "char_count": 4259,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.91,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.302480921141441e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9684178498437553
    },
    "sha256": "be0e6c535a0e18d3565afe5941c61907b0589e662b01fc7d0ebaedc5c6a39ab9",
    "simhash": "1:6365423edbb143fb",
    "word_count": 740
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:42.068781+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Hickman, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Rick PEARSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellant was placed on five years\u2019 probation pursuant to his plea of nolo contendere to a charge of theft of property. As a condition of his probation, he was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $3,266, which was the value of the cash and merchandise allegedly stolen, at the rate of $150 per month. Upon appellant\u2019s failure to make the monthly payments, the trial court found that appellant had violated his probation, set it aside, fround him guilty of theft of property, and sentenced him to three years\u2019 imprisonment. On appeal, appellant asserts, through his court appointed counsel, that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because the state failed to sustain its burden of proving that the nonpayment of restitution was willful or in bad faith and that he had the ability to pay.\nAs a condition of probation, the trial court is authorized to require the defendant to make restitution to the aggrieved party, \u201cin an amount he can afford to pay, for the actual loss or damage caused by his offense. \u201d Ark. Crim. Code \u00a7 41-1203 (2) (h) (1976). A court may revoke the probation, enter a judgment of conviction, and impose any sentence that may have been imposed originally for the offense \u201cif the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his suspension or probation.\u201d Ark. Crim. Code \u00a7 41-1208 (4) and (6) (1976).\nAt the time of his plea, appellant made no objection to the amount set as restitution and after reading the Statement of the Court Respecting Probation in the presence of his attorney, he signed it, acknowledging that he understood it, and accepted all conditions imposed by the court. It is undisputed that appellant, after making the first two monthly payments, had failed for four consecutive months to make the required restitution payments before the first revocation hearing. Appellant testified that he was unable to make the payments because he had a wife and three children to support; had to pay other bond fee expenses and had been waiting to see what was going to happen on another criminal charge; he cleared about $115 a week and would \u201clike to have 60 days to get it caught back up where I could afford to make my $150 a month payments ....;\u201d sixty days \u201cwould help me quite a bit\u201d because \u201c[t]hey are getting ready to start a big project and I\u2019m going to get about 32 hours a week overtime.\u201d The court postponed a decision to \u201csee what Mr. Pearson has done . . . [o]r whether he has done anything.\u201d The court stated to appellant, \u201cyou give the appearance of just really not caring until you get in a crack so we\u2019ll just see what the next four weeks bring. ...\u201d\nApproximately a month and a half later, another hearing was held. Appellant admitted failing to make any payments on the arrearage. In the interval two other payments became delinquent. Appellant stated that he had been trying to sell his car to make the payments, but he had to pay $500 to the bonding company to get his car back so he could sell it. Appellant\u2019s wife testified that they were \u201cgoing to pay the $500 to the court here .... but since they had postponed it we had \"took the $500 to pay the bonding company over here so we could sell this car and make up all these payments.\u201d She stated that she had gotten the car back a couple of weeks before and was using the car now \u201cjust to show it.\u201d Further she testified that there were prospective buyers who were \u201cjust trying to get the money up.\u201d\nHeretofore, in a revocation proceeding, we have required the appellant to demonstrate the court abused its discretion. Hereafter, we require appellant to show the court\u2019s finding was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.\nIn the circumstances we cannot say that the court\u2019s finding that appellant had inexcusably failed to (comply with the condition of his probation is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Hickman, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert S. Blatt, for appellant.",
      "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Jackson Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Rick PEARSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 77-185\n558 S.W. 2d 149\nOpinion delivered December 5, 1977\n(Division II)\nRobert S. Blatt, for appellant.\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Jackson Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0513-01",
  "first_page_order": 549,
  "last_page_order": 552
}