TERESA JEAN MCCORMICK V. STATE OF ARKANSAS

Sooner Cannabis Consultants

Click Here For Expert Help



918-960-5038

Teresa pleaded guilty to the underlying offenses of three counts of conspiracy to

deliver a controlled substance (Roxicodone) on November 6, 2009. She received a

suspended sentence on each count. The conditions of her suspended sentences included

not committing any offenses punishable by imprisonment. On May 16, 2017, the State

filed a petition to revoke, alleging Teresa had committed the new offenses of residential

burglary and theft of property. At the conclusion of the November 7, 2017 revocation

hearing, Teresa moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State had not proved its

residential-burglary basis for revocation. The trial court denied the motion and found





2



Teresa had violated the terms and conditions of her suspended sentences. The trial court

did not prepare an order setting forth its findings and conclusions; however, no objection

was raised to the lack of a written order. The pertinent docket entry for November 7,

2017, provided:

Revocation plea hearing held – McCormick, Teresa – in open crt before MJM, A. Johnson/Reporter, State/McCune, Deft Pres w/PD – Ryan Norris, Sworn testimony take w/rule, PD makes oral motion for direct verdict, Crt denies motion, Crt finds Deft did viol term and conds of susp sentence, Deft sentenced to 5 yrs ADC plus 10 yrs susp on resd burglary and 10 yrs on theft of prop, Deft to pay rest, crt grants appeal bond $5,000



The sentencing order was entered on November 20, 2017. This appeal followed, with

Teresa challenging only the residential-burglary basis for revocation, not the theft of

property.

To revoke a suspended sentence, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the

evidence that the defendant inexcusably violated a condition of the suspension. Bedford v.

State, 2014 Ark. App. 239. The State bears the burden of proof, but it need only prove the

defendant committed one violation in order to sustain the revocation. Id. When a trial

court bases its decision on alternate, independent grounds, and the appellant challenges

only one of those grounds, we will affirm without addressing the merits of either. Id.

Here, Teresa challenges only one of the grounds supporting her revocation. We

therefore affirm the revocation without addressing the merits of either residential burglary

or theft of property.

Affirmed