John Richardson v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 527
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-24-758

JOHN RICHARDSON Opinion Delivered November 5, 2025
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CLARK COUNTY
V. CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 10CR-21-178]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BLAKE BATSON,
JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge

John Richardson appeals from the circuit court’s order that extended his supervised

probation for an additional four years. Richardson contends that the circuit court

committed reversible error. We affirm.

Richardson is a Level 4 sex offender. Richardson was on probation for two years for

failing to comply with sex-offender-registration requirements when the State filed a petition

to extend his supervised probation and monitoring for fifteen years. The State alleged that

Richardson posed a great risk to the community and was likely to commit additional crimes:

he had unregistered email addresses and social media accounts; he was improperly acting as

a pastor; he failed to properly register his activities; he had contacts with and recordings of

minors; and his social-media activity and photographs demonstrated high-risk behaviors.
At the hearing, Richardson’s probation officer testified that he learned Richardson

was acting as a pastor and receiving pay (in the form of a “love offering”) for those services,

which Richardson was not allowed to do. The officer found an email address and a TikTok

account that Richardson had not reported. There was a picture on Richardson’s phone of

him sitting in a chair with a small female on his lap; there were pictures of other minors and

pictures of women’s behinds; and there were text messages about meeting people for Bible

studies and his acceptance of payments for his church-related services. Richardson had not

been fully forthcoming when he requested a travel pass to visit family in Memphis.

Richardson went to other locations than those listed on the pass, so Richardson had been

on short-term house arrest. The officer agreed that Richardson’s behavior would not

necessarily rise to a formal probation violation, but he believed that Richardson’s Level 4

status created concerns about his high-risk behaviors.

Richardson testified about the circumstances surrounding each of the State’s

allegations and provided what he believed were legitimate and innocent explanations. He

said he checked in every ninety days. He said some of the information on his phone was

years old, predating his probation. Richardson said he was not a “pastor” anymore, meaning

that he was no longer in a leadership position at a church. Richardson would “preach” at

church if asked and accept a donation if offered. He led an adult Bible study “every now

and then.” He denied ever being around children without supervision.

The circuit court granted the State’s petition and extended Richardson’s supervised

probation for four years. The circuit court did not require Richardson to wear an electric

2
ankle monitor. This appeal followed. Richardson asserts that he was compliant with the

sex-offender rules, so the circuit court erred in extending probation. We disagree.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-107(b)(1) (Repl. 2024) permits a prosecuting

attorney to file a petition asking that a person on probation for certain sex offenses be subject

to an extended period of supervision and monitoring. The petition is to include allegations

that the extension is necessary because (1) the person poses a serious risk to the public and

(2) there is a likelihood that the person would commit additional criminal offenses. Id. The

State’s burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence, 1 and, if the extension is

granted, the period may be up to fifteen years. Id. § 5-4-107(d)(1). The standard for appellate

review is abuse of discretion. Id. § 5-4-107(f).2

Richardson has failed to demonstrate that the circuit court committed reversible

error. First, it is undisputed that Richardson is a Level 4 sex offender. The community-

1
A preponderance of the evidence means it is more likely than not that the charged
conduct occurred. See Ames v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 434, 698 S.W.3d 668. The
determination of a preponderance of the evidence turns on questions of credibility and
weight to be given testimony on which we defer to the circuit court’s superior position.
Ledford v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 409, 698 S.W.3d 127.
2
Both Richardson and the State assert that we must view the evidence and all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence
supporting the verdict. To the contrary, the applicable statute, enacted by our legislature in
2015, specifies that the standard of review is abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion
occurs when the circuit court acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Lewis v. State, 2020 Ark. 350,
609 S.W.3d 389. An abuse of discretion is a high threshold that does not simply require
error in the circuit court’s decision but requires that the circuit court act improvidently,
thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. Meredith v. State, 2025 Ark. 38, 708 S.W.3d
765.

3
notification level required for sex offenders ranges from 1 (low) through 4 (high), which

gauges the public’s need to be informed depending on the severity of risk to the public.

Dillard v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm., 2016 Ark. App. 147, 485 S.W.3d 701. As relevant

here, Level 4 describes a “sexually dangerous person” who is likely to engage in predatory sex

offenses. Id. The designation indicates that the highest and most visible means of

community notification is required. Sex Offender Assessment Comm. v. Sera, 2023 Ark. App.

239, 666 S.W.3d 862. Richardson is a Level 4 sex offender and a “sexually dangerous

person,” so he is by definition a serious risk to the community.

Section 5-4-107 also requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that there is

a likelihood that Richardson would commit additional criminal offenses. A person who has

been adjudicated guilty of a sex offense must register as a sex offender and comply with sex-

offender-registration rules. See Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-906(a)(1)(A) (Supp. 2025). A sex

offender who fails to register or verify registration as required is guilty of a Class C felony.

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-904(a)(1)(A)(i). The sex-offender-registration requirements are

mandatory, and the failure to comply is a strict-liability offense. Hall v. State, 2022 Ark. App.

232, 646 S.W.3d 204. Arkansas Code Annotated § 12-12-908(b) (Supp. 2025), which applies

to all sex offenders, requires the offender to register a list of information that includes all

email addresses used by the offender and all social-media-account information. Id. § 12-12-

908(b)(20), (b)(22). The sex offender is required to verify his registration information at

specific intervals. See Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-909(a)(1) (Supp. 2025). Richardson was

required to register all his email addresses and social-media-account information at the time

4
of registration and to verify the information periodically. Richardson had been sanctioned

for violating travel-pass rules. On this evidence, we cannot say the circuit court committed

reversible error in finding it likely that Richardson would commit additional criminal

offenses.

Richardson also contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to

explain the basis for its decision to extend probation. Richardson fails to cite any authority

(case law, statute, or court rule) to support his contention. Richardson did not request

specific findings of fact from the circuit court. He raises this issue for the first time on appeal.

An issue must be raised to the circuit court and ruled on to be preserved for appellate review.

Eastin v. State, 370 Ark. 10, 257 S.W.3d 58 (2007). In addition, he fails to present persuasive

authority to support his argument. The relevant statute, section 5-4-107, is silent on whether

any specific findings of fact are required. We do not research or develop an appellant’s

argument for him. Cluck v. State, 365 Ark. 166, 226 S.W.3d 780 (2006). Accordingly, we

will not address this argument on appeal. See Sanders v. JLP, LLC, 2024 Ark. App. 65, 683

S.W.3d 607.

Affirmed.

HARRISON and BROWN, JJ., agree.

The Law Offices of J. Paul Coleman, by: Jay Paul Coleman, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

5