{ "id": 8724646, "name": "Larry CURETON v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Cureton v. State", "decision_date": "1979-10-24", "docket_number": "CA CR 79-61", "first_page": "1034", "last_page": "1037", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "266 Ark. 1034" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "574 S.W. 2d 888", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1668913 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/264/0723-01" ] }, { "cite": "246 Ark. 723", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 Ark. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1675861 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/262/0513-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 420, "char_count": 5699, "ocr_confidence": 0.65, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6115555665600208e-07, "percentile": 0.6856644924086308 }, "sha256": "f385a3f3bc6040811fef0808b523cb102c342105120d55a19f769d0d6681b90b", "simhash": "1:5587e78c64fdb352", "word_count": 942 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:50.628261+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Larry CURETON v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "George Howard, Jr., Judge.\nOn January 24, 1978, appellant entered a plea of guilty to charges of forgery and uttering a $28.00 check. He was sentenced to the Department of Correction for five years, with four years suspended, on the forgery count and was placed on probation for five years on the uttering charge.\nOn February 5, 1979, the Prosecuting Attorney for Sebastian County filed a petition to revoke appellant\u2019s suspended sentence and term of probation. Appellant allegedly went to the Foxfire Club, a private dub in Fort Smith, and, after having been denied admittance because he and an associate were dressed ih blue jeans, broke into the club and assaulted the manager; and that this conduct was done in violation of his probation and suspended sentence; that appellant\u2019s associate, Jackie Queen, was a known felon.\nOn February 8, 1979, the trial court, after conducting a revocation hearing, revoked appellant\u2019s probation and suspended sentence and sentenced the appellant to the Department of Correction for four years on the forgery charge and ten years on the uttering count, with both sentences running concurrently. The court suspended two years of the sentence.\nAppellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his prior sentence and probation; and that the imposition of the maximum sentence on the uttering count is a further abuse of the court\u2019s discretion.\nIn Pearson v. State, 262 Ark. 513, 558 S.W. 2d 149 (1977), the Arkansas Supreme Court in holding that \u201cabuse of discretion\u201d would no longer be the standard to be used in evaluating a trial court\u2019s finding in a revocation proceeding, stated:\n... A court may revoke the probation, enter a judgment of conviction, and impose any sentence that may have been imposed originally for the offense \u2018if 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.\u2019 . . . (Emphasis added.) See also: Ark. Crim. Code \u00a7 41-1208(4) and (6) (1977 Repl.)\nAfter reviewing the record, we cannot say that the trial court\u2019s finding that appellant had inexcusably failed to comply with the condition of his probation and suspended sentence :' r.i \u25a0 m. cl, Ah nco ns\u00a1i, (fence, tter\u00bb bis probation .wad suspended sentence wee. -ondMonc'd \"u; bis gown fcWwdor, that appellant wi*...: ; spccted t\u00ed\u00bb livw as si good \u2019biding citizen and to get /\u00a1erg with people, that appdtort must not associate with persons who hove criminal meords; ?*nd\u00a1 that appellant was \u00abo# to frequent '\u2018bust joints.\u201d\nAppellant. \u00bfximitted that prior io his arrival at the Foxfire Club, be \u00bfjad visited the Relay Station, a bar ini Fort Smith; that he left the Rebuy Station with Jackie Queen, a convicted felon, a\u00ed appiOjriUwsticly 2:00 a.m.; and-'ha? he had one \u201cPony ikidwexaer\u201d beer earlier in the evening- Appellant acknowledged that he was Involved in an altercation at the Foxfire Club, hunt insisted til at he was not the aggvrjsof. I* is dear da! appellant and Jar\u00edde Queen were seeking to enter the Foxfire Chub \u00abver the objections of the manager because they went: dressed in blue \u00a1jeans; that the altercation grew out of appellant\u2019s efforts to gam entry into the dub; and that appellant and Jackie departed after an employee at the club ordered them away at gun point.\nAppellant argues that the trial court committed error In taking into considera* ion, in revoking his probation and suspended sentence, that appellant had been associating with Jackie (Queen, a convicted felon. Appellant contends that Jackie is Ids first, coonsin and that they were virtually reared in the same household .end Jackie is regarded as a member of appellant\u2019s immediate family. Consequently, argues appellant, the condition imposed relating to appellant\u2019s non-association wish perenne who have criminal record\u00e9 should not apply muks the circumstances existing in this case. We are not Impressed wills appellant\u2019\u00bb argument inasmuch as it is dear that appellant and Jackie Queen, at the time that appellant received the suspended sentence and probation, were not residing in she js&mhc household and the trial murt made it crystal dear that appellant was not to associafr cfit\u00bb any person who fiad a ct \u00bfurinal record. Moreover, if ap^.-luat was uncertain about the application of the condition to his cousin or if the need arose where it became necessary for appellant to visit his cousin or to share accommodations, appellant could have either checked with his parole officer or the trial court for direction and guidance.\nFinally, appellant argues that when the trial court imposed the probation and suspended sentence, he was led to believe that in the event his probation and suspended sentence were revoked, the court would impose a sentence equal to the original suspended term and the probationary period; and for the trial court to sentence him to ten years on the uttering charge instead of five years, appellant was denied due process of law since he was not duly notified of the potential sentence to which he may be subjected. Appellant makes this argument for the first time at the appellate level. It is well recognized that an appell\u00e1te court will not consider a question raised for the first time on appeal. Hughes v. State, 246 Ark. 723, 574 S.W. 2d 888.", "type": "majority", "author": "George Howard, Jr., Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Pryor, Robinson, Taylor & Barry, for Appellant.", "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen, by: Robert J. DeGostin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Larry CURETON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 79-61\nOpinion delivered October 24, 1979\nand released for publication November 16, 1979\nPryor, Robinson, Taylor & Barry, for Appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen, by: Robert J. DeGostin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "1034-01", "first_page_order": 1060, "last_page_order": 1063 }