RICKY L. PEALS, APPELLANT
STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NO. CR-08-667. HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR. JUDGE.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge. WHITEAKER and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge
This is a no-merit appeal from the revocation of appellant Ricky Peals's probation by the Crittenden County Circuit Court, for which he was sentenced to three years in the Arkansas Department of Correction, followed by four years' suspended imposition of sentence.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) (2014) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that this appeal is wholly without merit. The motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below, alleged to include all objections and motions decided adversely to appellant, and a brief in which counsel explains why there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal. The clerk of this court provided appellant with a copy of his counsel's
brief and notified him of his right to file a pro [2015 Ark.App. 2] se statement of points for reversal within thirty days. Appellant did not file pro se points, and as a consequence, the State Attorney General has not filed a brief in response.
As this is a no-merit appeal, counsel is required to list each ruling adverse to the defendant and to explain why each adverse ruling does not present a meritorious ground for reversal. See Anders, supra ; Ark. S.Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1); Eads v. State, 74 Ark.App. 363, 47 S.W.3d 918 (2001). The test is not whether counsel thinks the circuit court committed no reversible error, but whether the points to be raised on appeal would be wholly frivolous. See Anders, supra ; Eads, supra. Pursuant to Anders, we are required to make a determination of whether the case is wholly frivolous after a full examination of all the proceedings. See Anders, supra ; Eads, supra.
In compliance with the directive in Anders, supra, and Rule 4-3(k), counsel claims that he has thoroughly examined the record of this proceeding but found no error that would support an appeal. The circuit court in this matter made only one evidentiary ruling adverse to appellant--in addition to the revocation itself--and that was an attempted " confrontation" objection at the revocation hearing that was overruled. During direct examination, witness Albert Caldwell testified that he was on his ...