ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

TERRY CRABTREE, JUDGE

DIVISION II

JEREMY PHILPOT

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 00-1098

APRIL 4, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR 95-1043B, CR 98-94, CR 99-251,CR 99-429,CR 99-753]

HONORABLE JOE MICHAEL FITZHUGH, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFRIMED

Appellant, Jeremy Philpot, appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences by the Sebastian County Circuit Court. On August 5, 1998, appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of forgery. Appellant received a suspended sentence of five years with the condition that he pay restitution of $350, a fine of $500, and court costs of $150. On September 15, 1999, appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offenses of forgery, theft by deception, and overdraft. Appellant received a suspended sentence of fifteen years conditioned on appellant paying $7,077.91 in restitution, a fine of $1,000, court costs of $150, and with the condition that he not violate any state or federal law. On April 13, 2000, the State moved to revoke appellant's suspended sentences, alleging that he failed to comply with the conditions of his probation by committing two acts of forgery and failing to make payments towards the restitution, fines, and court costs entered. The circuit court

revoked appellant's probation, finding that the State met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his probations. Appellant argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the circuit court's findings. We find no error and affirm.

To revoke a suspended sentence, a trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his suspension. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d) (Repl. 1997). On appellate review, we uphold a revocation unless the trial court's findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id.

Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the circuit court's finding that he committed forgery in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-37-201 (Repl. 1997), and that he had an established pattern of non-payment of restitution and fines in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-205 (Repl 1997).

Appellant was accused of forging checks on the account of B & L Construction Company. Detective Ronald Scamardo of the Fort Smith Police Department testified that after he arrested appellant and read him his Miranda rights, appellant told him that he showed Mr. Jay Stevens, his co-defendant, how to forge checks and take them to different locations where the checks would be accepted. Mr. Joshua Henderson, the night manger at Harvest Foods, testified that appellant entered Harvest Foods with a check from B & L Construction Company. Mr. Henderson testified that he cashed the check for appellant. It is within the province of the fact-finder to determine the weight of the evidence and thecredibility of the witnesses. Johnson v. State, 337 Ark. 196, 987 S.W.2d 694 (1999). In the present case, the circuit court determined that Mr. Henderson's testimony was sufficient to find that appellant committed forgery. We agree, and hold that the circuit court did not commit error in finding that the evidence was sufficient to find that appellant committed forgery. In order for appellant's suspended sentence to be revoked, the State need only prove that appellant committed one violation of the conditions. Ramsey v. State, 60 Ark. App. 206, 959 S.W.2d 765 (1998). As we have stated, we are affirming the circuit court's finding that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence by committing the offense of forgery. The State has proven that appellant committed one violation of the conditions. Therefore, we need not address appellant's argument regarding the circuit court's finding that he had an established pattern of non-payment of restitution and fines.

Affirmed.

Griffen and Baker, JJ., agree.