FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2013-1070]
HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR., JUDGE.
Butler Bernard, Jr., for appellant.
and Vaught, JJ., agree.
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge.
Crittenden County Circuit Court revoked Short's probation
and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. Pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Rule 4-3(k)(1) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and
Court of Appeals, Short's attorney has filed a no-merit
brief, along with a motion to withdraw, asserting that there
is no issue of arguable merit for an appeal. Short was
notified of his right to file pro se points for reversal via
certified mail, but he has not done so. We affirm the
revocation and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
January 2014, Short pled guilty to a violation of the
Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act and was placed on five
years' probation. In February 2015, the State petitioned
to revoke Short's probation, alleging the following
violations: (1) failure to pay fines, costs, and fees as
directed; (2) failure to report to probation as directed; (3)
failure to pay probation fees; (4) failure to notify the
sheriff and probation of his current address and employment;
(5) violation of the Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act.
revocation hearing held in August 2015, Sergeant Stacy Allen,
a criminal investigator for the West Memphis Police
Department, testified that he was responsible for overseeing
the sex-offender registry. Allen explained that Short was
required to check in every six months, he had checked in on
30 May 2014, and he was expected to next check in on 30
November 2014. On 2 September 2014, Short reported that he
was moving to a different street address in West Memphis.
Allen testified that there was no further contact from Short
after September 2. Based on Short's not reporting, Allen
issued a warrant for Short's arrest. In February 2015,
Allen received information that Short was living in
Millington, Tennessee. Allen faxed the Millington Police
Department a copy of the warrant, and Short was arrested.
Chancey Rainey, Short's probation officer, testified that
Short had been reporting and was on an every-three-month
reporting schedule, but that after reporting on 3 September
2014, he failed to report on his next scheduled date of 4
November 2014. After some investigating, Rainey discovered
that Short was living in Millington, Tennessee, so Rainey
contacted Allen and gave him Short's address. Rainey also
testified that Short owed $70 in probation fees. Amy Peyton,
an employee of the Crittenden County Sheriff's
Department, testified that Short was ordered to pay $1520 in
fines and costs in January 2014, that he paid a total of $60
in 2014 and $250 in 2015, and that he owed a balance of
close of the State's case, defense counsel moved to
dismiss the allegation of failure to notify the sheriff of
his current address and employment. The court granted the
motion with respect to the sheriff's office.
testified and agreed that he had pled guilty to a violation
of the registration act in January 2014 and was sentenced to
five years' probation. He explained that he had been
disabled since 2010 and had relied on oxygen assistance since
2011. He testified that he was unable to work and that his
income was $700 a month in government assistance. He
acknowledged that he had no excuse, other than a lack of
transportation, for not reporting as required in November
2014. He also acknowledged his obligation to pay $50 per
month toward his fines and costs and stated that if given one
more chance, he would "up these fines to $100 a
month" and "do the right thing." The defense
rested and did not renew or make additional motions for
dismissal. The defense also failed to renew or make
additional motions for dismissal after the State's
circuit court found that Short had violated his probation by
failing to "be of good behavior" and not violate
any state, federal, or municipal law; failing to report to
probation; violating the registration act by failing to
report; and failing to promptly notify his probation officer
of any change of address. The court exempted Short from any
further payment obligations due to his disability. The court
imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment followed
by three years' suspended imposition of sentence (SIS).
The court entered a written order on August 19, and Short has
timely appealed from that order.
appeal from a revocation, we review whether the circuit
court's findings are clearly against the preponderance of
the evidence. Jones v. State, 2013 Ark.App. 466. In
order to revoke probation, the State has the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition
of probation was violated. Id. Evidence that is
insufficient to support a criminal conviction may be
sufficient to support a revocation. Joiner v. State,
2012 Ark.App. 380. Proof of just one violation of the terms
and conditions of release is sufficient to support
revocation. Richardson v. State, 85 Ark.App. 347,
157 S.W.3d 536 (2004).
counsel argues that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal and asks to withdraw as counsel. A request to withdraw
on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit shall
be accompanied by a brief that contains a list of all rulings
adverse to appellant and an explanation as to why each ruling
is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-3(k)(1). The brief must contain an argument section that
consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant
made by the circuit court on all objections, motions, and
requests made by either party with an explanation as to why
each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.
case, counsel explains that Short made a motion for dismissal
at the close of the State's case but did not renew the
motion at the close of all the evidence. Thus, counsel
states, any argument challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence is not preserved. Counsel then goes on to discuss
the grounds for revocation and explains why each one does not
present a meritorious basis for appeal. Counsel first
discusses the failure to report to probation as directed and
failing to notify probation of his current address and
employment. Counsel asserts that both the probation
officer's testimony and Short's own testimony support
revocation on this basis. Next, counsel discusses the failure