ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE
RONALD SHAMLIN, JR.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
February 20, 2008
APPEAL FROM THE SALINE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
HON. GRISHAM A. PHILLIPS, JR.,
In April 2006, appellant Ronald Shamlin pled guilty to theft-of-property and multiple
drug charges. As part of his guilty plea, he was sentenced to probation. Shamlin’s probation
conditions required him to pay restitution, fines, and court costs, and to make monthly
contact with his probation officer. In October 2006, the State filed a petition to revoke
Shamlin’s probation on the ground that Shamlin failed to pay restitution, fines, and court
costs. At the revocation hearing, evidence of Shamlin’s failure to regularly contact his
probation officer was introduced. The trial court denied the State’s petition to revoke
probation based on Shamlin’s failure to pay, but it granted the petition based on Shamlin’s
failure to maintain monthly contact with his probation officer.
For reversal, Shamlin contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his
probation based on evidence of probation violations not enumerated in the petition to revoke
and that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation. Shamlin’s first point on
appeal is not preserved, and we affirm on his second point.
Shamlin first argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation
based on evidence of probation violations not enumerated in the State’s petition to revoke.
It is undisputed that the trial court revoked Shamlin’s probation based on evidence of a
probation violation that was not alleged in the State’s petition. And it is true that a defendant’s
right to due process requires that he be given notice of the conditions of probation that he
was alleged to have violated. Cheshire v. State, 80 Ark. App. 327, 95 S.W.3d 820 (2003).
However, it is also true that the