John William "Bill" Seamster, Jr. v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that completing the Reduction of Sexual Victimization Program was a condition of Seamster’s suspended imposition of sentence, not merely a condition of incarceration. The court affirmed revocation of his suspended sentence after finding that he inexcusably failed to complete the program, and reversed the court of appeals.

Holdings

1. The circuit court had jurisdiction to revoke Seamster's SIS because the six-year imprisonment term and the ten-year SIS were imposed on separate counts and were ordered to run concurrently; the suspension therefore ran concurrently with the imprisonment under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-307(b)(2).
2. Completion of the Reduction of Sexual Victimization Program was a condition of Seamster's suspended sentence, not merely a condition of incarceration.
3. The RSVP condition did not create an illegal sentence or violate the 120-day limitation in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-304(d).
4. The circuit court's finding that Seamster inexcusably violated the RSVP condition was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, and the revocation was properly sustained.
5. Seamster could not raise on appeal his claim that the circuit court failed to provide a written statement of the evidence and reasons for revocation because he did not present that objection to the circuit court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to revoke Seamster's suspended imposition of sentence for conduct occurring during his incarceration and before his release.
2. Whether completion of the Reduction of Sexual Victimization Program was a condition of Seamster's suspended sentence or merely a condition of incarceration.
3. Whether treating completion of the program as an SIS condition imposed an illegal sentence exceeding the 120-day confinement limitation in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-304(d).
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish an inexcusable violation of the SIS condition and whether the lack of a written revocation statement could be raised for the first time on appeal.

Disposition

reversed