NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

OLLY NEAL, Judge

DIVISION II

CACR01-1128

NOVEMBER 6, 2002

JUSTIN DUKES AN APPEAL FROM THE CLARK APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

v. [CR-97-36]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JOHN ALEXANDER

APPELLEE THOMAS, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Justin Dukes, appeals the revocation of his probation by the Clark County Circuit Court. He asserts that the court's decision to revoke his probation was not supported by substantial evidence. Appellant also asserts that the court erred when it denied his motion for a continuance. We affirm.

On December 18, 1997, appellant pled no contest to a charge of sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced to probation.1 On the evening of July 7, 2001, appellant and Chris Cannon attended a bikini contest at a local club. While there, appellant consumed atleast one alcoholic beverage. He and Cannon, along with two females, left the club around two a.m., and went to appellant's home. After everyone left his home, appellant went to bed. He was later awakened by the sound of someone kicking and banging on his door. When appellant opened the door, he found Cannon demanding entry to his home. An altercation then ensued between appellant and Cannon. During the altercation, appellant retrieved some steak knives from his kitchen to defend himself. As a result, Cannon sustained four cuts that required fifty-four stitches.

Appellant was charged with battery in the second degree, and the State moved to revoke his probation. In its motion to revoke appellant's probation, the State alleged that appellant violated the following conditions of his probation: (1) he failed to abstain from using alcohol and patronizing businesses whose primary purpose was the sale of alcohol; (2) he violated the law by committing the offense of battery in the second degree; and (3) he failed to pay the Clark County Sheriff as ordered.

At the revocation hearing, Becky Reeves, appellant's probation officer, testified that as of July 2001, appellant had paid only $5,358.13 in court-ordered restitution and that he should have paid $7,886.63. She also testified that, during the past six months, appellant had paid more than the court-ordered amount.

Detective Sherry Spear testified that she found scuff marks on appellant's door consistent with his statement that Cannon had been kicking and hitting the door. Spear also testified that the club appellant attended engaged in the sale of alcohol.

Chris Cannon testified that, on the night in question, he was too intoxicated to drivehome. He stated that he left to move his truck and when he returned, he found appellant's door locked and his lights off. Cannon admitted knocking repeatedly on appellant's door. He asserted that their altercation began when appellant hit him. Cannon testified that, during the altercation, his thumb was injured. During cross-examination, Cannon admitted that he has been on probation and parole. He also admitted to having been charged with theft by receiving and possession of narcotics.

Appellant testified that on the night in question, he and Cannon went to a local club to watch a bikini contest. He admitted that while there he consumed a beer. However, he denied frequenting places that sell alcohol. Appellant testified that, when he opened his door, he demanded that Cannon leave his property. He stated that he hit Cannon after Cannon threatened him.

The court found that appellant violated a condition of his probation when he consumed a beer on the night of July 7, 2001. Appellant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment in the Department of Correction. This appeal followed.

A trial court may revoke a defendant's probation if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his probation. Barbee v. State, 346 Ark. 185, 56 S.W.3d 370 (2001). In order for a defendant's probation to be revoked, the State need only prove that the defendant committed one violation of the conditions. See Rudd v. State, 76 Ark. App. 121, 61 S.W.3d 885 (2001). On appellate review, the trial court's findings will be upheld unless they are clearly against a preponderance of the evidence. Bradley v. State, 347 Ark. 518, 65 S.W.3d 874 (2002).Evidence that is insufficient to support a criminal conviction may be sufficient to support a revocation. Thompson v. State, 342 Ark. 365, 28 S.W.3d 290 (2000).

Here, appellant admitted he consumed a beer on the evening of July 7, 2001. This admission alone was sufficient evidence to support the court's finding that appellant violated a condition of his probation. Therefore, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence supports the revocation of appellant's probation.

Appellant also asserts that the court erred in denying his motion for continuance. Prior to his revocation hearing, appellant filed a motion for continuance stating that he had not been provided any medical information as to the seriousness of Cannon's injury and that he had not been provided with Cannon's criminal record. Appellant asserted that he could not perform an effective cross-examination without this information.

Rule 27.3 of the Ark. R. Crim. P. provides that "the court shall grant a continuance only upon a showing of good cause and only for so long as is necessary taking into account not only the request or consent of the prosecuting attorney or defense counsel, but also the public interest in prompt disposition of the case." Goodman v. State, 74 Ark. App. 1, 45 S.W.3d 399 (2001) (citing Ark. R. Crim. P. 27.3). Moreover, absent an abuse of discretion, we will affirm a trial court's denial of a motion for continuance. Id.

Rule 17.1 of the Ark. R. Crim. P. provides :

* * *

This court has held that it is reversible error when a prosecutor fails to comply with a defendant's timely request for disclosure of information, when that failure results in prejudice to that defendant. Lee v. State, 340 Ark. 504, 11 S.W.3d 553 (2000). The information must be disclosed by the prosecutor in sufficient time to permit the defense to make beneficial use of it. Id. When the prosecutor fails to provide information, the burden is on the defendant/appellant to show that the omission was sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. Id.

The information requested by appellant related to the second-degree battery charge. This information was not prejudicial. Therefore, as appellant fails to demonstrate any prejudice, the denial of his motion for continuance was proper.

Affirmed.

Pittman and Griffen, JJ., agree.

1 We are unable to discern the term of appellant's sentence or the conditions of his probation because appellant failed to include the judgment and commitment order and the conditions of his probation in the addendum.