Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 525
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-25-436
Opinion Delivered October 28, 2026
MICHAEL WAYNE HALL APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NOS. 17CR-24-280; 17CR-24-281;
V. 17CR-24-332]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CANDICE A.
APPELLEE SETTLE, JUDGE
SUBSTITUTED OPINION ON
DENIAL OF REHEARING
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Michael Wayne Hall appeals the revocation of his suspended imposition of sentence
(SIS). He asserts that the circuit court erred in finding that he inexcusably violated the
conditions of his SIS and in denying his motion to strike two conditions of his SIS as
unconstitutional. We affirm and remand with instructions.
On 11 June 2024, the State charged Hall with first-degree terroristic threatening,
aggravated assault on a family or household member, and third-degree domestic battery
(17CR-24-280). In a separate information also filed on June 11, the State charged Hall
with trafficking of persons, two counts of aggravated assault on a family or household
member, third-degree domestic battery, and harassing communications (17CR-24-281).
And on 5 July 2024, the State charged Hall with aggravated assault, first-degree terroristic
threatening, third-degree domestic battery, and violation of a no-contact order (17CR-24-1
332). Briefly, the State alleged that Hall had threatened and physically abused two women
and forced at least one of the women to participate in producing pornography.
In December 2024, Hall entered a plea agreement for all three cases in which he pled
guilty to two counts of aggravated assault on a family or household member, one count of
terroristic threatening, and one count of attempted trafficking of a person. Hall received an
aggregate sentence of 120 days in county jail and a ten-year SIS. The special conditions of
his SIS required him to have no contact with the victims, Jasmine Murray and Abrie
Patterson, and to remove any photographs or videos depicting Jasmine Murray on any and
all social media accounts to which he has access within ten days of the entry of the plea
agreement and SIS conditions, which was 18 December 2024. The special conditions also
included the following:
13. Defendant is prohibited from buying, selling, filming, participating in,
directing, uploading, or transmitting pornography in any manner.
14. Defendant shall not entice, ask, suggest, or otherwise solicit any person
to participate in pornography in any manner.
The court entered the final sentencing order on 31 December 2024.
On 15 January 2025, the State petitioned to revoke Hall’s probation and alleged that
he had committed new offenses of harassing communications and unlawful distribution of
sexual images or recordings. The State also alleged that he had failed to remove a video of
Jasmine Murray from his social media accounts as ordered and had asked, solicited,
suggested, transmitted and/or engaged in pornography.
On 17 March 2025, Hall moved to strike conditions 13 and 14 of his SIS. He argued
that the conditions violated his First Amendment rights and the Due Process Clause and are
2
therefore unconstitutional. The next day, the parties appeared for a scheduled revocation
hearing, and the court first heard arguments on Hall’s motion. Hall asserted that conditions
13 and 14 covered what is essentially expressive conduct that is protected by the First
Amendment and should be subject to a “scrutiny analysis.” He also argued that the
conditions are “void for vagueness” because “pornography” is not defined in the Arkansas
Code or the conditions of suspension. He contended that “given the lack of specificity in
it, it ought to be struck.”
The circuit court found that the conditions are “very specific” and “narrowly tailored
to deter [Hall’s] future criminal conduct and protect the public.” The court agreed that the
First Amendment was implicated but found that the language in the conditions “is narrow
enough to try to prevent what he did from happening again to another victim.”
The court then proceeded with the revocation hearing. Jessica Sherrill, Jasmine
Murray’s best friend, monitored Hall’s social media after he was sentenced on 31 December
2024 to make sure he removed all content involving Jasmine. Sherrill said that the majority
of the content was removed but that one video on TikTok remained after the deadline
imposed by the court.
Jonathan Arredondo, a Van Buren police officer, was notified that Hall may be in
violation of one or more of his SIS conditions, so Arredondo obtained a search warrant for
Hall’s Snapchat account. Arredondo discovered that Hall had solicited and received nude
photos and videos from several women after his sentencing on 31 December 2024. He had
also asked these women to provide copies of their IDs so he could verify their age. In
3
particular, Hall communicated with a woman with the screen name YesIAmRykin and
received pornographic photos and videos from her.
Haley Bott testified that she began communicating with Hall on TikTok on 22
December 2024 and met him in person on December 31. A couple of days after they began
communicating, Hall asked her to post videos and screenshots of Jasmine Murray to
“damage her reputation and make her look bad.” Hall also asked her to send him nude
photos of herself and sent her a video of himself masturbating. Hall visited her in New
York in early January 2025 and showed her pornographic videos of Jasmine and other girls;
Hall was in some of these videos as well.
Hall testified that before his arrests and guilty plea, he was employed mostly through
OnlyFans and Fansly, which are pornography sites. But since his sentence began on 31
December 2024, he had not produced any professional pornography, nor had he posted any
pornography to those sites. He understood the SIS conditions to mean that he could no
longer make pornography. He did not consider receiving nude photos through “sexting”
to be pornography: “I figured that was just like a daily part of every night—everybody’s
life.” He denied showing pornographic videos of Jasmine Murray to Haley Bott. He did
not deny sending Bott a video of him masturbating, but he did not consider that
pornography. He agreed that there was a video of Jasmine on his TikTok after the ten-day
deadline imposed by the court, but he explained that he had deleted well over a thousand
videos and that he had not intentionally left that video posted.
The circuit court found that Hall was not credible and that “he had every intention
of doing exactly what he did before and was doing exactly what he did before.” The court
4
also found that Hall had violated the conditions of his SIS in several ways: (1) Hall’s
communications with YesIamRykin were clearly designed to solicit pornographic pictures
and videos; (2) Hall violated the specific order to take down any videos including Jasmine
Murray from social media within ten days of the court’s order; (3) Hall downloaded four
videos and/or pictures from YesIamRykin, which violated the provision that he not upload
pornography; (4) Hall sent videos of himself to Haley Bott that were clearly pornographic;
(5) Hall showed videos of Jasmine Murray and other girls, including pornography, to Haley
Bott.
The circuit court sentenced Hill as follows. In 17CR-24-280, on the count of
aggravated assault on a family or household member, the court sentenced Hall to six years’
imprisonment. In 17CR-24-281, on the count of attempted trafficking of a person, the
court sentenced Hall to twenty years’ imprisonment; 1 on the count of aggravated assault on
a family or household member, the court sentenced Hall to six years’ imprisonment. And
in 17CR-24-332, on the count of first-degree terroristic threatening, the court reinstated
Hall’s six-year SIS. The court ran Hall’s prison sentences consecutively and the SIS
concurrently with the prison sentences. Hall timely appealed.
1
The State notes that because Hall was previously sentenced to 120 days on this count, the twenty-year sentence appears to exceed the statutory maximum. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(g)(1)(B) (Supp. 2023) (“any sentence to pay a fine or of imprisonment, when combined with any previous fine or imprisonment imposed for the same offense, shall not exceed the limits”). We agree, and we remand with instructions to the circuit court to amend the sentencing order to reflect Hall’s previous sentence of 120 days for attempted trafficking.
5
To revoke an SIS, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the evidence
that the defendant has inexcusably violated a condition of the probation or suspension.
Springs v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 364, 525 S.W.3d 490. The State’s burden of proof in a
revocation proceeding is lower than that required to convict in a criminal trial, and evidence
that is insufficient for a conviction may be sufficient for a revocation. Id. The State does
not have to prove every allegation in its petition, and proof of only one violation is sufficient
to sustain a revocation. Mathis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 49, 616 S.W.3d 274. We will
uphold the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the
evidence. Id. Because the determination of a preponderance of the evidence turns on
questions of credibility and weight to be given to the testimony, we defer to the circuit
court’s superior position to do so. Burgess v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 54.
Hall first argues that the circuit court erred in finding that he inexcusably violated
the conditions of his SIS. While he admits that one video of Jasmine Murray had not been
deleted from his social media as ordered, he asserts that the State never introduced any
evidence that he was aware the video was still on TikTok. Also, he had deleted thousands
of posts, so failing to remove one post should not be considered an “inexcusable” violation
of his SIS conditions. Likewise, Hall asserts that “sexting” cannot be viewed as inexcusably
violating the conditions of his SIS because he did not know he was restricted from sending
or receiving any sexually explicit material in his personal life or for his own personal use.
In addition to finding Hall not credible, the circuit court made the following findings
with regard to Hall’s failure to remove the Murray video from social media. The court
expressed doubt that Hall had deleted “thousands” of videos, but even if he had, he was
6
ordered to delete this particular video, which he did not do. The court found that the video
“was probably a popular video for him, and I don’t think he wanted to take it down.”
Hall admitted that he failed to timely remove a video of one of the victims from his
social media accounts, and that admission alone is enough to support the revocation. See
Harris v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 452, 530 S.W.3d 872 (a defendant’s confession that he
violated a condition of his suspended sentence is sufficient to support the revocation). And
while Hall asserts that his failure to delete the video was inadvertent and therefore not
“inexcusable,” the circuit court did not find him credible and instead found that Hall had
not “wanted to take it down.” We defer to the circuit court’s superior position to
determine questions of credibility and weight to be given to the testimony. Burgess, supra.
And because proof of only one violation is sufficient to sustain a revocation, Mathis, supra,
we need not address the remaining grounds for revocation.
Next, Hall argues that conditions 13 and 14 are unconstitutional because “they
invade [his] right to protected speech under the First Amendment,” which protects sexually
explicit material. He also contends that conditions 13 and 14 are void for vagueness and
thus violate the Fourteenth Amendment. However, we are affirming Hall’s revocation
based on his failure to remove all photographs or videos of Jasmine Murray from his social
media accounts within ten days of the court’s order, which is condition 11 of his SIS.
Because conditions 13 and 14 are not implicated in the basis for revocation, we need not
address Hall’s constitutional arguments. Our supreme court has held that it will not address
a constitutional argument when the case can be disposed of without doing so. Feland v.
State, 355 Ark. 573, 142 S.W.3d 631 (2004); see also Foreman v. State, 321 Ark. 167, 901
7
S.W.2d 802 (appellate court will not address appellant’s constitutional argument because its
resolution is not so necessary to the determination of this case that it cannot otherwise be
decided).
Affirmed; remanded to amend sentencing order.
BARRETT and BROWN, JJ., agree.
James Law Firm, by: William O. “Bill” James, Jr., and Dalton Wayne Orsborn, for
appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
8