ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

CHIEF JUDGE JOHN F. STROUD, JR.

DIVISION IV

JOSEPH JOHN FLIHAN

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 00-1483

September 5, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

[CR98-40]

HONORABLE ALAN D. EPLEY,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

On April 5, 1999, appellant, Joseph Flihan, pleaded guilty to the offenses of delivery of a controlled substance (psilocybin), a Class B felony, and delivery of a controlled substance (marijuana), a Class C felony. In exchange for these guilty pleas, the trial court sentenced him to supervised probation for a period of three years, and a judgment and disposition order reflecting same was entered of record on June 14, 1999. The State subsequently filed a petition to revoke appellant's probation and amended it three times, with the last petition alleging fifteen separate violations of the terms and conditions of appellant's probation. A hearing on the revocation petition was held on June 12, 2000, and at the close of the evidence, the trial judge found that appellant had violated the conditions of his probation. Appellant was sentenced to ten years in the Arkansas Department of Correctionwith five years suspended on each of the two counts, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appe

llant makes two arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court failed to prepare and furnish him with a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking his probation; and (2) because the trial court did not make any specific findings from the bench or in writing regarding the specific terms of probation appellant had inexcusably violated, the trial court failed to find by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant had inexcusably violated a condition of his probation. We affirm the revocation of appellant's probation.

In his first point on appeal, appellant complains that the trial court failed to issue him a written statement of the basis and the evidence relied upon in revoking his probation as required in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-310(b)(5) (Repl. 1997). However, a review of the record reveals that appellant never asked the trial court to issue a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking his probation or objected to the failure to do so. The failure to do so precludes this court's consideration of this argument. Brandon v. State, 300 Ark. 32, 776 S.W.2d 345 (1989). Had appellant requested a written statement of the court's basis for revoking his probation, such a written statement could have been provided to him. Lockett v. State, 271 Ark. 860, 611 S.W.2d 500 (1981).

Appellant also contends that the trial court failed to find by a preponderance of the evidence that he had inexcusably violated a condition of his probation because there were no specific findings from the bench or in writing indicating which conditions of probation appellant had inexcusably violated. However, appellant failed to request that the trial courtmake specific findings of the bases for the revocation of his probation either from the bench or in writing. The burden of obtaining a ruling is on the appellant, and matters left unresolved are waived and may not be raised on appeal. Vaughn v. State, 338 Ark. 220, 992 S.W.2d 785 (1999).

Furthermore, as the State points out, when an error is alleged, prejudice must be shown, as we do not reverse for harmless error. Phillips v. State, 25 Ark. App. 102, 752 S.W.2d 301 (1988). One of the purposes of the written statement is to inform the appellant of the precise basis of the trial court's decision in order to prepare an intelligent appeal. Id. In the present case, appellant cannot show prejudice because he did not preserve the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence for our consideration by moving to dismiss the revocation petition at the close of all of the evidence. Rule 33.1(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000) requires that if a motion for dismissal is to be made in a nonjury trial, it shall be made at the close of all of the evidence, and the failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in the manner required by Rule 33.1(b) "will constitute a waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment or verdict." Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c) (2000). In Miner v. State, 342 Ark. 283, 27 S.W.3d 280 (2000), our supreme court held that this rule is applicable to revocation proceedings. Therefore, even if the trial court had supplied appellant with written findings enumerating the bases for the revocation of his probation, appellant still could not prevail because the issue of the sufficiency of evidence was not preserved for our review.

Affirmed.

Griffen and Neal, JJ., agree.