Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 382
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-24-435
CRAIG CRISWELL Opinion Delivered September 2, 2026
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CONWAY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 15CR-19-233]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JERRY DON RAMEY,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge
Craig Criswell appeals from an order of the Conway County Circuit Court revoking his
suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) and sentencing him to concurrent terms of seven years
in the Arkansas Division of Correction (ADC). Criswell argues that the evidence was insufficient
to support the revocation of his sentence. We find no error and affirm. 1
1
We previously remanded this case to the circuit court to settle and supplement the record in order to address what appeared to have been an illegal sentence. Criswell v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 563. In short, this court was unable to determine whether Criswell had been sentenced as a habitual offender on a count of possession of methamphetamine. The original sentencing order did not reflect habitual-offender sentencing for this offense, which would have rendered his seven-year sentence on a Class D felony illegal. Compare Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(5) (Repl. 2024) (setting the maximum sentence for a Class D felony at six years) with Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(a)(2)(E) (Supp. 2025) (setting the maximum sentence for a Class D felony for a small habitual offender at twelve years).
Following remand, an amended sentencing order was entered on December 3, 2025, reflecting that Criswell was sentenced as a habitual offender, thus rendering his seven-year sentence legal. Although we ordered the supplemental record to be filed within thirty days of
Criswell entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one charge each of possession of
methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia in May 2020. He was sentenced to a
144-month SIS and ordered to pay court costs of $150 and a fine of $1500, to be paid in $110
monthly installments. The terms and conditions of his SIS also forbade him from committing
criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment. In October 2023, Criswell was charged with
possession of drug paraphernalia, and in January 2024, the State filed a petition to impose
Criswell’s suspended sentence, alleging that Criswell had committed a criminal offense and had
not paid his court-ordered fines and fees.
The circuit court held a hearing on the State’s petition on March 11, 2024. The State
introduced Criswell’s account payment summary through Lisa O’Neal, an employee of the
Conway County Circuit Clerk’s Office. The summary showed that Criswell was supposed to
have paid $1985 in fines, fees, and costs but had paid only $80 as of March 1, 2024.
In addition to the evidence of Criswell’s failure to pay his court-ordered financial
obligations, the State introduced the testimony of Dominic Harris of the Morrilton Police
Department. Harris testified that he had been called to a domestic disturbance at Criswell’s
address on September 4, 2023. After Criswell’s wife made a comment about Criswell being “on
dope,” Harris searched the house pursuant to a search waiver. In the bedroom, he found a small
brown baggie containing a crystalline substance as well as syringes and a glass smoking device. 2
our November 19, 2025 opinion, or by December 19, 2025, we did not receive the record until April 24, 2026.
2
The circuit court subsequently found that the State had failed to meet its burden of proving that Criswell had committed the offense of possession of drug paraphernalia because nothing in Harris’s testimony connected Criswell with the paraphernalia found in the bedroom.
2
Criswell also testified at the hearing. He explained that he had been evicted on
September 1 from the house that Harris searched and had not been inside the house in two
days. He denied that the items found in the bedroom were his. Criswell testified that he had
been in jail the previous month for “nonpayment of fines or something” and got the eviction
notice when he got out of jail and returned home. He acknowledged that he had not been paying
his rent for “numerous reasons,” although he did not specify what those reasons were.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that the State had proved that Criswell
had made only one $80 payment over the entire term of his SIS. 3 The court further found that
there had been no proof regarding Criswell’s inability to pay: “[T]here is no showing that he’s
looked for employment or that he has employment––anyway, he’s done nothing. So, on the
element regarding nonpayment, as I said, I’m going to find that the State has met its burden on
that issue.” Accordingly, the court found that Criswell had inexcusably violated a condition of
his SIS, revoked his SIS, and sentenced him to concurrent seven-year prison terms. Criswell
timely appealed and now argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation of
his SIS.
To prevail in a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant inexcusably failed to comply with at least one condition of his
probation or SIS. Ames v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 434, 698 S.W.3d 668. On appellate review, we
will not reverse the circuit court’s decision unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the
3
The account summary introduced into evidence actually reflected separate payments of $10 on January 5, 2024; $35 on February 1; and $35 on March 1.
3
evidence. Id. This court defers to the circuit court’s superior position on questions of credibility
and the weight to be given testimony. Id. Because the burden of proof in a revocation proceeding
is less than that in a criminal case, proof that would be insufficient to obtain a criminal
conviction may be sufficient to support a revocation. Id.
In his sole point on appeal, Criswell argues that the circuit court clearly erred in revoking
his SIS on the grounds that he inexcusably failed to pay his court-ordered fines and fees. A circuit
court may revoke an SIS if the defendant has not made a good-faith effort to make court-ordered
payments. Nelson v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 152. While the State has the burden of proving that
the failure to pay is inexcusable, once the State has introduced evidence of nonpayment, the
burden of going forward shifts to the defendant to offer some reasonable excuse for the failure
to pay. Id. If the defendant asserts an inability to pay and provides evidence demonstrating that
inability, then the State must demonstrate that the defendant did not make a good-faith effort
to pay. Id.
It is the defendant’s obligation to justify his failure to pay, and this shifting of the burden
of production provides an opportunity to explain the reason for nonpayment. Sanders v. State,
2012 Ark. App. 697. This shifting burden draws out the reason for nonpayment, and the
defendant may not “sit back and rely totally upon the [circuit] court to make inquiry into his
excuse for nonpayment.” Alexander v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 466, at 4, 561 S.W.3d 744, 746. Nor
must the State negate every possible excuse for nonpayment—an impossible task—in its case-inchief. Reese v. State, 26 Ark. App. 42, 759 S.W.2d 576 (1988). When a defendant offers no
4
reasonable excuse, however, reversal of a revocation on that basis is not warranted. Youngberg v.
State, 2025 Ark. App. 177; Vail v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 407, 438 S.W.3d 286.
Criswell argues that he “satisfied the shifting burden” and demonstrated a reasonable
excuse for his failure to pay. He cites his testimony that he had spent time in jail for failing to
make payments on his fines in another case, had been evicted from his home for nonpayment
of rent, and had spent time at Counseling and Associates for temporary memory loss.4 Because
he presented evidence of “special circumstances that may have [had] a bearing on [his] ability to
pay,” he urges this court to reverse the revocation of his SIS.
Criswell’s argument is without merit. Although he offered testimony about being evicted
and being in jail, he presented no evidence regarding why he had not paid anything from the
date his court-ordered obligations were imposed in 2020 until the revocation petition was filed
in January 2024. Stated another way, he did not offer a reasonable excuse for his failure to pay.
On this record, we cannot say that the court clearly erred in finding that Criswell inexcusably
failed to pay his court-ordered fines and fees and revoking his SIS. We therefore affirm.
Affirmed.
ABRAMSON and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
TS Branch Law Firm PLLC, by: Tabatha Branch, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4
This latter point was not made during Criswell’s testimony, as his brief suggests, but after the court had already announced its decision to revoke Criswell’s SIS.
5