Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 406 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-26-39 Opinion Delivered September 16, 2026 MICHAEL WAYNE HALL APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 17CR-24-332] V. HONORABLE CANDICE A. STATE OF ARKANSAS SETTLE, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED 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 violated a condition of his SIS by sending a letter to one of the victims in his case. We affirm. In December 2024, Hall entered guilty pleas in 17CR-24-280, 17C-24-281, and l7CR-24-332. Relevant to this appeal, in 17CR-24-332, Hall pled guilty to first-degree terroristic threatening, and the court sentenced him to six years’ SIS. A special condition of his SIS required him to have no contact with Jasmine Murray or Abrie Patterson, who are the victims in these cases. The State filed a petition to revoke in all three cases in January 2025, and after finding that Hall had violated the conditions of his SIS, the court sentenced him to an aggregate term of thirty-two years’ imprisonment. In 17CR-24-332, the circuit 1 court reinstated Hall’s six-year SIS and the previous SIS conditions, including the requirement that he not contact the victims.1 In July 2025, the State again petitioned to revoke Hall’s SIS because he had contacted Abrie Patterson while incarcerated in the Crawford County Detention Center (CCDC). At the revocation hearing, Abrie Patterson testified that on July 12, she received a letter at her grandmother’s address at 2024 Brookhaven Drive in Alma, Arkansas. The return address identified the sender as Nicholas Morgan, who is an inmate at the CCDC. She opened the letter and recognized Hall’s handwriting; in addition, part of the letter was written on the back of a commissary receipt belonging to Hall. Nicholas Morgan testified that he had been in the same pod as Hall at the CCDC and that he gave Hall permission to use his (Morgan’s) name and inmate number on any letters or other correspondence that Hall sent from the jail. Morgan said he did not know Patterson and did not write the letter or address the envelope. Sergeant Edwin Bishop, an employee of the Crawford County Sheriff’s Office, testified that he questioned Hall about the letter, and Hall reportedly said “he wasn’t going to tell me that he sent the letters, but he wasn’t going to say that he didn’t send the letters.” Hall also told Bishop that the conditions in his plea agreement “shouldn’t matter.” Bishop also questioned Morgan, who denied sending the letter to Patterson. In making its ruling, the court noted that not only had Patterson, whom the court found credible, identified Hall’s handwriting, but the letter clearly references Hall’s 1 For a full discussion of Hall’s revocation in 17CR-24-332, see Hall v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 405, also handed down today. 2 relationship with Patterson. The court found Hall in violation of the terms and conditions of his SIS by contacting Patterson and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment to run consecutively to his other sentences. Hall timely appealed the sentencing order. 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 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. We will uphold the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Mathis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 49, 616 S.W.3d 274. 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 argues that the State failed to prove that he mailed the letter to Patterson. He likens the situation to a chain-of-custody issue and asserts there is a reasonable likelihood that the letter had been altered. Hall acknowledges that Morgan gave Hall permission to use Morgan’s name and inmate number on correspondence and that Patterson testified the letter was in Hall’s handwriting, but he argues that “[t]he State did not prove, though, how the mail was taken from the Crawford County Detention Center and somehow transferred to Abrie.” He notes that Bishop did not review the outgoing mail log at the CCDC or any video footage from the CCDC “to see any document/item leave [Hall’s], cell or pod.” Hall contends that he could have enemies at the CCDC who sent the letter to get him trouble, 3 or he could have been writing a “therapeutic diary or journal” that was then mailed without his permission or knowledge. We cannot reach Hall’s argument because it is not preserved for our review. The purpose of establishing a chain of custody is to prevent the introduction of evidence that has been tampered with or is not authentic. Hawkins v. State, 81 Ark. App. 479, 105 S.W.3d 397 (2003). A chain-of-custody argument is an evidentiary argument that requires a contemporaneous objection. Sanderson v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 205. Here, Hall did not object to the admission of the letter into evidence at the hearing or make any argument that the letter had been altered. Affirmed. BARRETT and BROWN, JJ., agree. Dusti Standridge, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Dalton Cook, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 4