Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto
Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
DERRICK GRANT COLLINS V. STATE OF ARKANSAS
Case Number: 2018 Ark. App. 563
Judge: ROBERT J. GLADWIN
Court: ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff's Attorney: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen.
Defendant's Attorney: Lisa-Marie Norris
On March 15, 2013, Collins was charged with aggravated burglary, aggravated
robbery, kidnapping, theft of property, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug
paraphernalia. He pled guilty and was sentenced to four years of probation. On August 6,
2015, the State filed a petition to revoke, alleging that Collins had failed to make payments
as ordered and had failed to abide by terms and conditions of probation by absconding. He
entered a plea of guilty, and his probation was revoked. Collins was sentenced to two years
in a regional correctional facility and eight years SIS.
On August 14, 2017, the petition to revoke at issue in this appeal was filed. The
State alleged that Collins had “committed the new offense of robbery in Sebastian
County.” A hearing on the petition began on December 6, 2017, and was continued and
completed on January 16, 2018. Collins was found to have committed a robbery under an
accomplice- liability theory, and his SIS was revoked pursuant to a sentencing order filed
on January 18, 2018.
II. Standard of Review
Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2017), a circuit
court may revoke a defendant’s SIS if a preponderance of the evidence establishes the
defendant inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of the SIS. E.g., Vangilder v. State,
2018 Ark. App. 385, 555 S.W.3d 413. The State’s burden of proof in a revocation
proceeding is less than is required to convict in a criminal trial, and evidence insufficient
for a conviction at a criminal trial may be sufficient for revocation. Id. When the
sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal from an order of revocation, the circuit
court’s decision will not be reversed unless it is clearly against a preponderance of the
evidence. Id. The appellate court defers to the circuit court’s superior position in evaluating
the credibility and weight to be given testimony. Id.
The petition to revoke alleged that on or about August 3, 2017, Collins committed
the new offense of robbery in Sebastian County and that conduct was in violation of the
terms and conditions of his SIS. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-12-102(a)
(Repl. 2013), “[a] person commits robbery if, with the purpose of committing a felony or
misdemeanor theft or resisting apprehension immediately after committing a felony or
misdemeanor theft, the person employs or threatens to immediately employ physical force
upon another person.”
The evidence presented was that the victim—Landon Silva—was lured into an SUV
that Collins was driving. It is undisputed that four people other than Collins were in the
SUV when Silva joined them. One person, Quentin Maroney, got in the back trunk or
cargo area and partially hid. Silva testified that he knew someone was behind him when he
got in the SUV but that he did not know who it was. He testified that someone hit him
from behind with a pole and that is all he remembers until he awoke on the side of the
road with none of his personal effects—with more than $2000, marijuana, his cell phone,
keys, and $80 Nike shoes having been stolen. It is undisputed that Collins was driving the
SUV. Accordingly, he claims that he could not have been the person who hit Silva from
behind with the pole. Also, Collins notes that no evidence was presented that he ever
One of the other passengers in Collins’s SUV, Sam Shaw, testified at the revocation
hearing that Collins drove them to a local gas station where they picked up Shaw’s brother,
Maroney, and three others. Discussing his plan and directing the others from the back seat
of Collins’s SUV, Maroney directed Shaw to contact a local drug dealer, Silva, to arrange
to buy marijuana. Shaw noted that Collins previously had driven them to buy marijuana
from Silva on other occasions. Shaw indicated that Maroney spoke out loudly from the
backseat about his plan to rob Silva instead of buying marijuana.
Shaw explained that Collins drove to Silva’s location, at which time Silva joined the
other passengers in the backseat. Maroney, who had hidden in the cargo area while en
route, started punching and choking Silva. Maroney robbed Silva of his cash, marijuana,
and shoes and then instructed Collins to pull over to the side of the road where Silva
climbed out of the SUV and was left on the side of the road. Collins then drove to his
home with the others still in the SUV. Shaw testified that Collins received a share of the
cash taken from Silva.
Testimony from other witnesses at the revocation hearing was consistent with
Shaw’s version of the events. And police officer Raymond Stanley testified that when
Collins gave a statement subsequent to his arrest, he denied knowing about or
participating in the physical altercation and the robbery in his SUV but admitted having
been the driver during the robbery and having smoked the stolen marijuana afterward.
Collins submits that because the State offered no evidence that he employed or
threatened to employ physical force against Silva, the State offered insufficient evidence
that he committed robbery; accordingly, his SIS should not have been revoked for
committing that offense.
We disagree. “Physical force” is defined as any “bodily impact, restraint, or
confinement” or “threat of any bodily impact, restraint, or confinement.” Ark. Code Ann.
§ 5-12-101 (Repl. 2013). Regarding the element of theft, a person commits theft of
property if the person “knowingly takes or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an
unauthorized transfer of an interest in the property of another person with the purpose of
depriving the owner of the property or obtains the property of another person by deception
or by threat with the purpose of depriving the owner of the property.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5
36-103(a) (Repl. 2013). Even if the testimony of other witnesses was inconsistent,
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is a sufficient basis for revocation of a
suspension of sentence. E.g., Ellerson v. State, 261 Ark. 525, 531–32, 549 S.W.2d 495, 498
(1977); Tipton v. State, 47 Ark. App. 187, 189, 887 S.W.2d 540, 542 (1994).
We hold that the evidence supports the finding that Collins actively participated in
the robbery by driving his SUV while his passengers discussed, planned, and committed
the robbery of Silva in the SUV. Collins was still driving when Silva was kicked out of the
SUV on the side of the road, and he joined in divvying up the stolen cash and smoking the
marijuana taken from Silva.
Outcome: Based on the foregoing, we hold that the circuit court’s decision to revoke Collins’s SIS based on his participation in the robbery was not clearly against a preponderance of the evidence.