Christa Craig v. State of Arkansas - Probation Revocation Appeal
Summary
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision to revoke Christa Craig's probation. Craig had appealed the revocation, arguing insufficient evidence. The court found the evidence sufficient to support the revocation based on alleged violations including failure to report and pay fees.
What changed
The Arkansas Court of Appeals, in the case of Christa Craig v. State of Arkansas (Docket No. CR-25-447), affirmed the Montgomery County Circuit Court's decision to revoke appellant Christa Craig's probation and sentence her to five years imprisonment. The appeal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation. The court's opinion details the alleged violations, including failure to report, failure to report a change of address, failure to pay supervision fees, and failure to pay fines and court costs, as testified by Probation Officer Howard Watts.
This ruling means that Craig's probation remains revoked, and her sentence of five years imprisonment stands. For legal professionals and courts involved in probation revocation cases, this decision reinforces the importance of documenting and presenting clear evidence of probation violations. While no specific compliance deadlines or penalties are detailed for regulated entities in this opinion, it serves as a precedent for the standard of evidence required in such cases within Arkansas.
Penalties
Five years imprisonment
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Christa Craig v. State of Arkansas
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- Citations: 2026 Ark. App. 179
Docket Number: Unknown
Combined Opinion
Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 179
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-25-447
Opinion Delivered March 11, 2026
CHRISTA CRAIG
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MONTGOMERY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NOS. 49CR-23-57, 49CR-24-16]
V.
HONORABLE ANDY RINER, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
MIKE MURPHY, Judge
The Montgomery County Circuit Court revoked appellant Christa Craig’s probation
and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Craig challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting the revocation. We affirm.
In April 2024, Craig pleaded guilty to nonfinancial identity fraud and failure to
appear (cases Nos. 49CR-23-57 & 49CR-24-16). She was sentenced to forty-eight months’
supervised probation, with the first 120 days to be served in a Community Correction Center
(CCC).
On January 6, 2025, the State petitioned to revoke Craig’s probation due to several
alleged violations: failure to report, failure to report change of address, failure to pay
supervision fees, and failure to pay toward fines and court costs. A revocation hearing was
held on April 4, 2025, and established the following.
Probation Officer Howard Watts testified that Craig was sentenced to “probation
plus,” which is probation preceded by a term of imprisonment in the CCC. After her release
from the CCC on September 26, 2024, she contacted the Mena probation office and was
instructed to report the following day. She did not report. Watts conducted a home visit to
Craig’s address in Mount Ida on December 13, 2024, and no one answered the door. He
left a card on the door instructing her to report to the Mena office the following Monday,
December 16. She again failed to report.
Watts did not see Craig until she appeared in court for her first appearance on the
revocation petition on January 17, 2025. Watts asked her to remain in the lobby after court
so they could have an office visit, but Craig left without doing so. Craig did not complete an
official visit with Watts until March 11, just a few weeks before her revocation hearing. By
the time of her hearing, Craig had made no payments towards her fines, fees, and costs,
although by the date of the hearing, she had caught up and owed only the current month’s
$35 supervision fee.
Craig testified that she did appear at the Mena probation office on September 27,
2024, but the front-desk staff told her that Watts had already left for the day and would
contact her. She offered no explanation for why she failed to follow up with Watts at any
time during the next four months. She also stated that although she was able to work, she
made no payments toward her financial obligations because she never received the “packet”
explaining how to make those payments. Craig acknowledged, however, that she received
and signed the order of adjudication and probation in court. She admitted she knew she
2
had been placed on probation but claimed she was unaware of the specific terms and
conditions, believing she was doing everything required of her.
Craig’s mother, Belen Mena, testified that Craig was living with and helping take care
of her after her surgery during the probationary period.
The court found from the above facts that Craig violated her probation by failing to
report as directed and failing to pay her fines, fees, and costs, and it sentenced her to five
years’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.
To revoke probation, the burden is on the State to prove the violation of a condition
of the probation by a preponderance of the evidence. Jones v. State, 355 Ark. 630, 144 S.W.3d
254 (2004). Because the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence rather than
beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence that is insufficient to support a criminal conviction
may be sufficient to support a revocation. Id. Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to
warrant revocation. Passmore v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 425, 698 S.W.3d 400.
The State presented evidence that Craig did not report to her probation officer at any
time during a four-month period and that Officer Watts did not see her after her initial
intake appointment until she appeared in court following the filing of the revocation
petition. Officer Watts also conducted a home visit in December and left a note on Craig’s
door with reporting instructions for the following Monday in an attempt to re-engage her.
Craig argues that she complied with her reporting condition because Watts was not
present when she initially appeared at the Mena office in September. Watts, however, did
not recount being absent from the office that day. The circuit court was in the superior
3
position to assess the credibility of the testimony, and the circuit court did not clearly err by
choosing to believe Officer Watts’s testimony was more credible. See Cockrell v. State, 2024
Ark. App. 184, at 9, 686 S.W.3d 612, 617. Even so, failing to have any contact with Officer
Watts for the following four months was sufficient evidence to revoke her probation. See
Turner v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 534, at 6, 590 S.W.3d 158, 162 (affirming revocation when
defendant failed to report and had no contact with the probation office during a four-month
period).
Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court’s decision that Craig inexcusably violated
the terms of her probation was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
Because only one violation is necessary to support revocation, we need not address Craig’s
other argument and can affirm. See McKinney v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 473, at 3, 612 S.W.3d
172, 175.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Dusti Standridge, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Dalton Cook, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Arkansas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.