Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 286 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No.CR-24-617 Opinion Delivered May 7, 2025

MICHAEL GOODSON APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT V. [NO. 16JCR-17-1007] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge Michael Goodson appeals from a Craighead County Circuit Court sentencing order revoking his suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) and sentencing him to six years’ SIS.1 On appeal, he argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the State failed to prove that he had constructively possessed any contraband. We affirm.

In a criminal information filed 25 August 2017, the State charged Goodson with possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine; possession of drug paraphernalia, methamphetamine; and possession of a controlled substance, marijuana. In April 2021,

This is a companion case to two other cases: No. 16JCR-22-285, in which Goodson had been sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and thirty-six months’ SIS, and No. 16JCR-17-1615, in which he had been sentenced to five years’ probation. The circuit court held a combined revocation hearing for all three cases but issued separate sentencing orders in each case. Goodson has filed separate appeals, and today we hand down opinions in all three cases.

Goodson pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and the State nolle prossed the remaining charges. The court sentenced him to five years’ SIS.

In May 2024, the State petitioned to revoke Goodson’s SIS and alleged that he had failed to live a law-abiding life and not violate any state, federal, or municipal laws. The State also alleged that Goodson had been in possession of methamphetamine on or about 9 April 2024.

The court convened a revocation hearing on 11 June 2024. This hearing was combined with the revocation hearing in the two companion cases. The evidence presented at the revocation hearing has been detailed in a separate opinion also handed down today.

See Goodson v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 287, ___S.W.3d ___. Because the facts, issue on appeal, and argument presented here are identical to those presented in the companion cases, which are also handed down today, it is unnecessary to restate them here. On the basis of the reasoning set forth in Goodson, we affirm Goodson’s revocation.

Affirmed.

TUCKER and BARRETT, JJ., agree.

Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.