Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-339 (2026)

Case Notes

Double Jeopardy.

Double jeopardy attaches within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment (U.S. Const. Amend. 5), as applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment (U.S. Const. Amend. 14), in an adjudicatory delinquency proceeding in juvenile court. Avery v. State, 311 Ark. 391, 844 S.W.2d 364 (1993).

Evidence.

Court properly admitted juvenile's statements at a probation revocation proceeding to her probation officer regarding taking drugs because § 9-27-321 protected juveniles from Miranda violations in a pre-adjudication context, not at a revocation hearing; in addition, the statement was properly admitted because the statement was offered to prove that defendant had violated the terms of her probation. K.N. v. State, 360 Ark. 579, 203 S.W.3d 103 (2005).

State met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant failed to comply with the conditions of his probation where defendant was in possession of medication that was not prescribed to him, knew it was wrong, but did not care about the consequences of his behavior. W.T. v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 773 (2009).

In a case in which a minor was adjudicated delinquent pursuant to the juvenile court's finding that he committed the criminal offense of misdemeanor theft by receiving, in violation of § 5-36-106(a), the trial court did not err by revoking the minor's probation from a previous adjudication. He was required to obey all state, federal, and municipal laws as a condition of his probation, and substantial evidence supported the trial court's decision to adjudicate him delinquent. R.W. v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 220 (2010).

State proved that defendant committed terroristic threatening and thereby violated his probation because defendant would not share a basketball court with younger children, defendant replied with an expletive when asked to leave, and as defendant began to leave, he threatened that he would be back to “shoot the place up.” M.L. v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 130 (2013).

Notice.

Where there has been a first disposition denying revocation of probation, this section requires the prosecutor to file another petition for revocation and give notice to the delinquent that revocation is again being considered before probation can be revoked. Avery v. State, 311 Ark. 391, 844 S.W.2d 364 (1993).

Order of Court Improper.

Where at a probation hearing on December 12, 1991, a special judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile had violated the terms of probation, but where the judge did not revoke probation and fine appellant as could have been done, but instead, extended probation for an additional year, and where in addition the judge signed form order styled “Order to Appear,” which had a checkmark in a box to notify appellant that the appellant was to appear on March 18, 1992, for “Review of compliance with Orders of this court,” it was important for the trial court to revoke probation and fine the juvenile, when he appeared with counsel on March 18, 1992 pursuant to the “Order to Appear”. Avery v. State, 311 Ark. 391, 844 S.W.2d 364 (1993).

Order of Court Proper.

Court did not err in ordering both detention and inpatient drug treatment in juvenile's probation revocation order because the trial court did not amend its revocation order, but rather, entered an order of disposition on the revocation after finding that the juvenile violated the terms of her probation; at the time juvinile entered a plea of guilty, the trial court could have ordered detention and probation with the condition of receiving inpatient drug treatment. K.N. v. State, 360 Ark. 579, 203 S.W.3d 103 (2005).

Juvenile court properly revoked a juvenile’s probation and committed him to the Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services (DYS) because he did not challenge the evidence that he failed to obey the condition that he refrain from using alcohol, he cited no authority to support his contention that his disposition was unwarranted, and the juvenile court was statutorily authorized, upon finding the juvenile to be delinquent, to commit him to DYS upon revoking his probation. C.C. v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 262 (2014).

Order revoking defendant juvenile's probation was affirmed; there was testimony that defendant was not complying with the counseling condition of his probation, and while he offered an excuse, the trial judge was not required to believe him or excuse his failure to comply with probation conditions. T. M. v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 420, 439 S.W.3d 70 (2014).

Evidence was sufficient to support a decision to revoke probation for appellant, a juvenile, based on his failure to comply with the rules at a residential treatment facility; there was no testimony that a new medication regimen caused any negative change in appellant's behavior. The State produced evidence that appellant displayed increasingly violent and disruptive behavior that was attributed to appellant being “picked on,” instead of being due to a change in medication. J.J. v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 611 (2014).

Trial court did not err when it revoked juvenile's probation after juvenile was found delinquent on a new third-degree battery charge. T.R. v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 328, 552 S.W.3d 452 (2018).

Petition to Revoke Probation.

This section provides that after an adjudication of delinquency, the court may place a juvenile on probation; after a juvenile is placed on probation, the only method of revocation provided for is for the prosecuting attorney to file a petition to revoke probation. Avery v. State, 311 Ark. 391, 844 S.W.2d 364 (1993).

Defendant juvenile, relying on § 5-4-307, asserted the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke defendant's suspended sentence where the revocation petition was filed and heard outside the period of suspension, however, defendant's reliance on criminal code provisions was misplaced because § 9-27-331(c)(1) provided that an order of probation would remain in effect for an indeterminate period not to exceed two years, defendant had not been released from probation, and the trial court had jurisdiction to revoke defendant's probation pursuant to this section. Byrd v. State, 84 Ark. App. 203, 138 S.W.3d 109 (2003).

Cited: Eichelberger v. State, 323 Ark. 551, 916 S.W.2d 109 (1996).