Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 508 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-26-27 Opinion Delivered: October 28, 2026 DANIEL ELON BELL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT V. [NOS. 66FCR-07-561B; 66FCR-13-580] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE R. GUNNER DELAY, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge This is an appeal from the revocation of appellant Daniel Bell’s probation in two cases that were heard in a revocation hearing on December 4 and 11, 2025, in Sebastian County.1 I. Procedural History and Background With respect to 66FCR-07-561B (“561B”), in 2007 Bell pleaded nolo contendere to conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with thirteen years’ additional suspended imposition of sentence (“SIS”). One of the conditions of his SIS was that he would not violate any federal, state, or municipal laws. On February 1, 2011, the State filed an amended petition to revoke Bell’s SIS in 561B on the ground that he committed new offenses in violation of the terms and conditions of his SIS. 1 The revocation hearings also included three other cases—66FCR-07-705B, 66FCR- 07-1025A, and 66FCR-07-1575A—in which Bell was held in contempt for failure to pay restitution, but those charges are not part of this appeal and will not be discussed. Bell pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment and an additional twenty years’ SIS conditioned on not violating any federal, state, or municipal laws and good behavior. On June 11, 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke and/or show cause alleging Bell committed the offenses of aggravated residential burglary, aggravated robbery, first-degree battery, and felon in possession of a firearm. He was charged with these new offenses in 66FCR-13-580 (“580”). On January 8, 2014, Bell pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery, twelve years’ SIS for first-degree battery, and twelve years’ SIS for felon in possession of a firearm, to run concurrently. As part of the sentence, Bell was ordered to pay $500 in restitution and $250 in court costs and fees. The SIS in 580 was conditioned upon his not violating any laws and keeping current on a payment plan that required him to pay $50 a month beginning ninety days after his release from jail, which was on February 17, 2017. On December 11, 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke Bell’s SIS in the five cases mentioned herein, including 561B and 580. The State alleged that Bell violated the law and the terms and conditions of his suspended sentences on October 23 when he committed third-degree assault on a family or household member; and on November 23 when he violated a no-contact order in Sebastian County and committed the offenses of aggravated assault on a family member and third-degree domestic battery. Bell also failed to make payments as ordered for restitution in 580. 2 At the December 4, 2025 revocation hearing, the court heard the testimony of Micah Thompson, the alleged victim. The State introduced, without objection, the no-contact order issued against Bell with respect to Thompson. Thompson testified that she and Bell dated from June through November 2024. Thompson told the court about an incident in October when Bell was drinking vodka, and he “made a gesture like he was going to punch [her].” The police were called; Bell was arrested, and he was ordered to have no contact with Thompson. Thompson testified that in November, she and Bell were living together in a vacant house. One evening in November when Bell had been drinking liquor, he began to call her names and hit her with a Bang energy drink can. Bell also kicked Thompson and smashed her head into the floor repeatedly. Thompson then went into the kitchen and began to make Bell something to eat as he had requested, and Bell began threatening to hit her head with a hot pan. Thompson threw the pan down, and according to Thompson, Bell picked up the pan and began beating the back of her head until she bled. Shortly thereafter, Bell and Thompson left the house to go down the road. Bell had a gun and told Thompson it “[was not] going to be a good night” and that he was going to shoot her. After they walked from the house to a lit area, Bell had Thompson get on her knees and then fired the gun “right beside [her] ear.” After Bell shot the gun, he left the area. Thompson called the police. The police took pictures of Thompson’s swollen face, busted lip, and bruises. 3 On cross-examination, Thompson stated she had not been drinking or taking any medication but admitted that she went to rehabilitation a few days after the incident. After Thompson’s testimony, the State rested. Bell moved to dismiss, which the trial court denied. The court reconvened on December 11 for Bell to present his defense.2 Donna Bell testified over counsel’s objection that Thompson told her she was “jumped” by five women on J Street while she was with Daniel. Donna attributed Thompson’s injuries to the incident involving the five women. Donna denied that Bell beat Thompson or that he possessed a gun. Although she never saw Thompson with drugs when she and Bell were living together, Thompson was “not herself” around the time of the alleged assault. After Donna’s testimony, Bell chose not to testify, and the defense concluded its case. Bell’s counsel moved to dismiss, claiming that Thompson was the State’s only witness, and she had a mental illness and was homeless. The court denied Bell’s motion. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Bell had violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentences when he committed the acts of aggravated robbery, domestic battery, and felon in possession of a firearm and that Bell willfully refused to pay outstanding restitution. As a result of the violations, his suspended sentences were revoked in both cases. The court found Thompson’s testimony to be “more credible” than Donna’s testimony. The court specifically noted that the photographs of Thompson’s injuries were “consistent with the injuries she described in her testimony.” As a result of the 2 Bell was not ready on December 4 because his mother, Donna Bell, was not available to testify. 4 revocations, the circuit court sentenced Bell to fifteen years’ imprisonment followed by five years’ SIS for the Class C felony conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery in 561B; and concurrent terms of five years’ imprisonment followed by fifteen years’ SIS for the two Class B felonies first-degree battery and felon in possession of a firearm in 580. The court ordered that the concurrent terms of imprisonment in 580 were to run consecutively to the term of imprisonment in 561B. Bell argues on appeal that Thompson’s testimony was not credible and thus, there was insufficient proof that he violated the conditions of his suspended sentences by violating the law. We disagree and affirm. II. Analysis Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2023) provides that if a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of SIS, the court may revoke the SIS at any time prior to the expiration of the SIS. See also Springs v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 364, at 3, 525 S.W.3d 490, 492. 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, at 3, 616 S.W.3d 274, 277. We will uphold the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. 5 A condition of the SIS in both 561B and 580 was that Bell not violate any laws. Bell argues that there was insufficient evidence that he committed aggravated assault on a family or household member, committed third-degree domestic battery, or violated the no-contact order. Bell does not allege that there was any deficiency of proof regarding the specific elements of the crimes as alleged in the State’s petition to revoke his suspended sentences. Rather, Bell argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocations because Thompson’s testimony that he assaulted and battered her was an “ever-changing narrative” because she was a “transient and had multiple mental illnesses.” Bell also complains that Thompson did not show for the second hearing on December 11, 2025; however, counsel admittedly had not subpoenaed her for that hearing. The December 4 hearing was continued because Bell was not prepared to present his case. We are not convinced. At the revocation hearing, Thompson testified that, despite a no-contact order, Bell hit her with an energy-drink can, stomped on her head, hit her with a frying pan, and fired a gun near her head. The only exhibits presented to the court showed pictures of her injuries that the court found consistent with her testimony. Bell argues that the court should have accepted Donna’s testimony that she had never seen Bell in possession of a firearm, nor had she seen him behave violently toward Thompson. The circuit court specifically found Thompson’s testimony to be “more credible” than Donna’s testimony. The determination of a preponderance of the evidence turns on questions of credibility and weight to be given to the testimony, questions on which we defer to the circuit court’s superior position to judge. Burgess v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 54, at 6. 6 Accordingly, the revocation of Bell’s suspended sentences based on the court’s finding that Bell committed aggravated assault on a family or household member, domestic battery, and violation of a no-contact order was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Because proof of only one violation is sufficient to sustain a revocation, we decline to address Bell’s argument that the court erred in finding he willfully failed to pay restitution. Mathis, supra. Affirmed. VIRDEN and GLADWIN, JJ., agree. Trent D. Thomas, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Jacob Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 7