Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 442
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-25-616
HERIBERTO JUNIOR TRISTANIS Opinion Delivered September 30, 2026
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NOS. 72CR-19-3261, 72CR-22-87, 72CR23-1621, 72CR-23-1970]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE JOANNA TAYLOR,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Heriberto Junior Tristanis appeals following the revocation of his probation by the
Washington County Circuit Court. On appeal, Tristanis argues that the circuit court erred
by finding that he violated a condition of his probation. We affirm.
On April 10, 2024, Tristanis was sentenced to a concurrent sentence of seventy-two
months’ probation for three counts of possession of methamphetamine, two counts of
failure to appear, and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia in four different cases.
The conditions of his probation included that he report to his supervising officer as directed.
On August 28, 2025, the State filed an amended petition to revoke Tristanis’s
probation in all four cases alleging that he had violated his probation by not reporting to his
probation officer, not entering into a transitional-living program, not obtaining mentalhealth and substance-abuse treatment, not cooperating with his probation officer, not paying
his court-ordered obligations, and committing new offenses.
On September 3, the court held a revocation hearing. At the hearing, Ryan Stanger
testified that he had been Tristanis’s probation officer since June 2024. Stanger explained
that Tristanis participated in community service on May 28 but did not report after that
date. Stanger stated that he conducted a home visit at Tristanis’s registered address on June
20, but he could not locate him. He explained that he then filed a violation report for
absconding on July 5, and about a week after he filed the report, Tristanis was arrested for a
“possession charge” and was in jail until November 27. Stanger stated that after Tristanis was
released from jail, he started reporting again but did not report on March 10, April 1, and
May 9, 2025.
Stanger further testified that Tristanis did not enter a transitional-living program or
receive substance-abuse treatment as required by his probation. He stated that Tristanis had
outstanding fines and fees totaling about $347, and he noted that Tristanis had reported
earning $500 a week from employment. Stanger said that Tristanis was uncooperative and
unresponsive during meetings.
On cross-examination, Stanger acknowledged that Tristanis had “bounced back and
forth between homelessness, staying around 7 Hills and occasionally being at Salvation
Army.” Stanger testified that Tristanis “couldn’t tell me where his money was going or why
he couldn’t pay his fees.” He noted that Tristanis had completed community-service hours
that applied to his fees and fines. No other witnesses testified.
2
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Tristanis had violated his
probation by failing to report, failing to pay his court-order obligations, not living at his
registered address, being uncooperative and dishonest with his probation officer, not
entering a transitional-living program, and not obtaining mental-health treatment. The court
revoked his probation and sentenced him to thirty-six months’ imprisonment. This appeal
followed.
In a revocation proceeding, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his
probation, and on appellate review, we do not reverse the circuit court’s decision unless it is
clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Flemons v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 131; Ark.
Code Ann. § 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2023). Because the burdens are different, evidence that is
insufficient for a criminal conviction may be sufficient for a probation or suspended-sentence
revocation. Bradley v. State, 347 Ark. 518, 65 S.W.3d 874 (2002). Since a determination of a
preponderance of the evidence turns on questions of credibility and weight to be given
testimony, we defer to the circuit court’s superior position. Id. Furthermore, the State need
only prove that the appellant committed one violation of the conditions to revoke appellant’s
sentence. Peals v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 1, 453 S.W.3d 151.
On appeal, Tristanis argues that the circuit court erred by finding that he inexcusably
violated a condition of his probation, and he first challenges the circuit court’s finding that
he did not report to his probation officer. He asserts that even though he missed some
3
appointments, he reported on other occasions, and he argues that he missed and failed to
make up only his April 2025 appointment.
We find Tristanis’s argument unpersuasive. The probation officer testified that
Tristanis did not report on March 10, April 1, and May 9, 2025. Even though Tristanis
resumed reporting intermittently, he did not report as directed. See McGahey v. State, 2024
Ark. App. 30, 683 S.W.3d 211. Given these circumstances, we hold that a preponderance
of the evidence supports the circuit court’s revocation of Tristanis’s probation for failing to
report to his probation officer. Because the State need only show that Tristanis committed
one violation to sustain a revocation, we decline to address his arguments concerning the
other bases for the court’s revocation. Id.
Affirmed.
KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and VIRDEN, J., agree.
The Lane Firm, by: Jonathan T. Lane, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4