ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
CR-15-698
No.
SHONDRICA BURTON Opinion Delivered: April 6, 2016
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CONWAY
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-11-98]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JERRY DON RAMEY,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Shondrica Burton appeals the revocation of her probation. Burton claims that her
attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he was unable to explain the
meaning of joint and several liability to her in a way she could understand. Having reviewed
the record before us, we conclude that her argument is not preserved for appeal and affirm.
Burton pled guilty in 2012 to theft of property, a Class C felony. She was placed on
three years’ probation and ordered to pay $150 in court costs, $500 in fines, $325 in fees, and
$3,170 in restitution to the victim. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, Burton’s restitution
obligation was also jointly and severally applicable to her and her codefendants. On March 20,
2015, the State petitioned to revoke Burton’s probationary sentence, alleging that she had
violated the terms and conditions of her probation by living with a convicted felon at an
unreported address and by failing to pay her court costs, fines, fees, and restitution. A
Cite as
probation revocation hearing was set for May 20, 2015.
Just before the hearing began, defense counsel noted that the State had extended a plea
offer to allow Burton to plead guilty to the violation of conditions of probation and receive
an extension of probation for two years. Burton refused to take the offer because, according
to her, she did not understand what “joint and several liability” meant, and she considered
herself liable only for a third of the restitution amount with her two codefendants being liable
for the remainder. Following the hearing, the circuit court revoked Burton’s probation and
sentenced her to seven years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
On appeal, Burton concedes that the circuit court’s revocation of her probation was
not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence and does not assert any error with
respect to the revocation hearing itself. Burton alleges only that defense counsel rendered
ineffective assistance when he failed to adequately explain joint and several liability to her,
thereby causing her to reject the State’s plea offer.
Burton’s argument is not preserved for this court’s review. The State correctly
contends that Burton’s argument was not raised below, so now it is not properly preserved
for appeal. This court has long held that an appellant must raise an argument and obtain a
ruling on even constitutional issues in the trial court in order to preserve the issue for appeal.
See Raymond v. State,
(2003). Issues raised for
the first time on appeal will not be considered because the circuit court never had an
opportunity to make a ruling. Johnson v. State,
(2005)). Because Burton did not raise her ineffectiveness
claim at the trial court level, the issue cannot be considered on appeal.
Affirmed.
GRUBER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
Carey E. Lyles Dowdy, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3
