APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. No. CR-12-49. HONORABLE CHARLES BRENT DAVIS, JUDGE.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge. WALMSLEY and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge
Rickey Vail appeals from the revocation of his suspended imposition of sentence (SIS). Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k)(1) (2013) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), his attorney has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw, asserting that there is no issue of arguable merit to present on appeal. We affirm the revocation and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
On November 12, 2011, Vail pled guilty to multiple offenses--theft of scrap metal, first-degree criminal mischief, residential burglary, and theft of property--and was sentenced to serve 109 months' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction and forty-eight months' SIS; ordered to pay $2500 in restitution; ordered to pay court costs, fines, and fees; and directed to obey the conditions of his SIS. Vail was paroled in January 2013.
On May 16, 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke Vail's SIS, alleging that he had failed to pay restitution, fines, costs, and fees; failed to notify the sheriff and the probation office of his current address and employment; and committed four new offenses--residential burglary, theft of property, possession of a firearm by a felon, and fleeing. A revocation hearing was held on July 31, 2013. Amy Peyton, who collects court-imposed fines and fees for the Crittenden County Sheriff's Office, testified that Vail had made only one $75 payment toward his fines, costs,
and fees, leaving a balance of $1075. She also stated that since March 1, 2013, Vail had not contacted her to advise where he was working, where he was living, why he was not making his payments, or when he might make another payment. Vail's probation officer, Michael Alston, testified that he believed Vail was working in January 2013.
At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the trial court found that Vail inexcusably failed to notify his probation officer and the sheriff's department of any change of address and that he failed to pay his fines, fees, and costs. The trial court revoked Vail's SIS and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.
In the no-merit brief, counsel discusses the sole adverse ruling by the trial court--the revocation--and explains why it is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Vail has not raised pro se points for reversal; ...