ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ANDREE LAYTON ROAF, JUDGE

DIVISION III

RICHARD KEITH HOLLOWAY

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-620

SEPTEMBER 25, 2002

APPEAL FROM CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR2000-378]

HONORABLE FLOYD ROGERS, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Richard Holloway appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence. On appeal, Holloway argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation. We affirm.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, on January 10, 2001, Holloway pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana, third offense, and was sentenced to one year of probation and five years' suspended sentence. As a condition of his suspended sentence, Holloway was ordered not to commit a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. On February 2, 2001, the State filed a petition to revoke, alleging that Holloway had violated the terms of his suspended sentence by committing the offenses of fleeing apprehension, resisting arrest, driving on a suspended license, and having no proof of liability insurance. After a hearing held on March 12, 2001, the trial court revoked Holloway's suspended sentence and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.

Officer Carl Rogers testified that on January 29, 2001, he was running radar and watching a certain house that was suspected of containing illegal drug activity. Rogers witnessed two malescome out of the house; one male walked away and the other male, later identified as Holloway, left in a red Pontiac Firebird. As he tried to follow Holloway's vehicle, Rogers lost sight of it, but met up with it again at a stop sign and noticed that one headlight was out. Rogers testified that he activated his blue lights, and as he was turning around, Holloway's vehicle drove away, running two stop signs. Rogers continued his pursuit with his lights and siren on, but Holloway was two blocks ahead of him, and he again lost sight of the vehicle. Rogers deactivated his lights and siren and continued to look for Holloway's vehicle. Subsequently, the police officers received a tip concerning the location of the vehicle. Officer Louis Wallman testified that he investigated the tip and found Holloway hiding in some bushes behind a house. Holloway was placed under arrest and issued citations for fleeing, resisting arrest, driving on a suspended license, and having no proof of liability insurance on his vehicle.

Holloway argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation of his suspended sentence. At the revocation proceeding, the State had the burden of proving that Holloway violated the terms of his suspended sentence by a preponderance of the evidence. Stinnett v. State, 63 Ark. App. 72, 973 S.W.2d 826 (1998). On appeal, we do not reverse the trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id.

Holloway contends that there was insufficient evidence to show that he committed the offenses of fleeing, resisting arrest, driving on a suspended license, and having no proof of liability insurance. This argument is without merit. Although Holloway argues that there was no evidence that he committed the offense of driving on a suspended license other than the testimony of Officer Rogers, in his testimony, Holloway admitted that his license was suspended and stated that when he saw Rogers, he was afraid the officer was going to pull him over. According to Ark. Code Ann.§ 27-16-303(a) (Supp. 2001), driving on a suspended license is an offense punishable by imprisonment. It was an express condition of Holloway's suspended sentence that he not commit an offense punishable by imprisonment. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court's ruling that Holloway violated the terms of his suspended sentence. Holloway also argues that there was insufficient evidence that he committed the other offenses with which he was charged; however, the State must prove only one violation in order to sustain a revocation, so it is unnecessary to address the sufficiency of the evidence supporting these other offenses. Morgan v. State, 73 Ark. App. 107, 42 S.W.3d 569 (2001).

Holloway also contends that because the State did not introduce into evidence the terms of his suspended sentence, the trial court's decision to revoke his suspended sentence without reviewing these terms is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. However, the transcript of the hearing reflects that the State made its entire file a part of the record before the trial court, and the terms of Holloway's suspended sentence are contained in the record on appeal. Holloway has not pointed to anything in the record to support his argument that the trial court failed to review these terms before revoking his suspended sentence. In addition, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-303(b) (Supp. 2001) states that the court "shall provide as an express condition of every suspension or probation that the defendant not commit an offense punishable by imprisonment during the period of suspension or probation." Given this statutory requirement and the fact that the conditions were a part of the record at trial, the trial court was aware that Holloway was subject to this condition of his suspended sentence, and the trial court's decision to revoke his suspended sentence is not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Affirmed.

Griffen and Pittman, JJ., agree.