Arkansas Court of Appeals, 2025

Jerry Linton v. State of Arkansas

Jerry Linton v. State of Arkansas
Arkansas Court of Appeals · Decided October 22, 2025
2025 Ark. App. 498

Jerry Linton v. State of Arkansas

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 498 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-24-841

JERRY LINTON Opinion Delivered October 22, 2025 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE POPE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 58CR-21-1188]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JAMES DUNHAM, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED

WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge Jerry Linton appeals the Pope County Circuit Court’s sentencing order revoking his suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Linton argues that the evidence was insufficient to support revocation. We affirm.

In April 2022, Linton pled guilty to second-degree battery and refusal to submit to arrest and was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to two years in prison and four years’ SIS.

The SIS conditions included the requirement that Linton not commit a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. On June 5, 2024, the State petitioned to revoke Linton’s SIS, alleging that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by committing new criminal offenses—specifically, aggravated assault on a family or household member and terroristic threatening. An amended petition for revocation was filed on July 12, which added the offenses of disorderly conduct, public intoxication, and violation of the no-contact order by having contact with Kimberly Stanfield, Linton’s wife.

The circuit court held a revocation hearing on August 6, 2024. The court revoked Linton’s SIS in an order entered on September 12 and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Linton appealed.

Because the violations alleged in the petition to revoke, the testimony at the hearing, and Linton’s arguments on appeal are identical to those in the companion case, we will not restate them here, and we incorporate them by reference. See Linton v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 497. Accordingly, we hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation for the reasons set forth in that opinion, and we affirm.

Affirmed.

BARRETT and THYER, JJ., agree.

Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Dalson Cook, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.