FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 17CR-13-405]
HONORABLE GARY COTTRELL, JUDGE.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.
Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace,
Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
D. VAUGHT, Judge.
a no-merit appeal filed on behalf of Michael Oliver following
the Crawford County Circuit Court's revocation of his
suspended imposition of sentence (SIS). We grant
counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm.
was sentenced to twelve years' SIS in May 2014 after
pleading guilty to breaking or entering, theft of property,
criminal mischief, theft by receiving, and being a habitual
offender. An amended petition was filed in October 2015
alleging that Oliver had committed the new offenses of public
intoxication, obstruction of government operations, criminal
mischief, domestic battery, terroristic threatening, and was
a habitual offender. It also alleged that Oliver had failed
to make required payments toward his restitution, fines,
fees, and costs.
hearing on the petition was held on October 14, 2015. The
court heard testimony from Deputy Anthony Whitman, Amita
Oliver, and Janice Tuck regarding an incident on June 14,
2015, when Oliver was intoxicated and became angry during a
drive back to Arkansas from Oklahoma. The witnesses stated
that Oliver broke the windshield on Janice's car, broke
Amita's phone, accidentally caused a scratch to
Janice's shoulder while hitting the car with a stick, and
pushed Amita with such force it left a red mark on her
Janice Gilbreath, the victim witness coordinator for the
twenty-first judicial district, testified that Oliver had
been ordered to pay $80 per month but had not made payments
in March, April, or May 2015. He paid $150 in June 2015 but
did not make any payments after that. Oliver moved to
dismiss, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that he
had committed any of the subsequent offenses alleged in the
amended petition, that the alleged acts were not committed
within Arkansas, and that although he had not paid as
ordered, he had sometimes paid more than he had been ordered
circuit court revoked Oliver's SIS, finding that he had
violated its terms and conditions by being intoxicated,
striking Janice's car, and causing the stick to strike
Janice. The court also found that he had also inexcusably
failed to pay his court-ordered restitution, fines, fees, and
costs. He was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment. At
the very end of the hearing, Oliver tried to speak, saying he
hadn't had a chance to do so, and the court denied his
request to make a statement.
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals, Oliver'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 Oliver, 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
Oliver with a copy of his counsel's brief and notified
him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for
reversal. Oliver filed pro se points, and the Attorney
General has filed a brief in response. We affirm the
sentencing orders and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
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. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-3(k)(1); Eads v. State, 74 Ark.App. 363, 365, 47
S.W.3d 918, 919 (2001). The test is not whether counsel
thinks the trial court committed no reversible error, but
whether the points to be raised on appeal would be wholly
frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Eads,
74 Ark.App. at 365, 47 S.W.3d at 919. Pursuant to
Anders, we are required to determine whether the
case is wholly frivolous after a full examination of all the
proceedings. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Eads,
74 Ark.App. at 365, 47 S.W.3d at 919.
attorney correctly argues that any appeal stemming from the
court's adverse rulings related to the testimony of
Janice Tuck, Amita Oliver, or Deputy Whitman would be
frivolous because Oliver's SIS was also terminated based
on failure to pay court-ordered fines, fees, and costs. In
order to support revocation of probation, the State has the
burden of proof but need prove only one violation of
conditions of Oliver's SIS. Peals v. State, 2015
Ark.App. 1, at 4, 453 S.W.3d 151, 154 (citing Robinson v.
State, 2014 Ark.App. 579, 446 S.W.3d 190). Here, the
evidence of Oliver's failure to pay was introduced
without objection, and Oliver does not dispute that he failed
to pay as ordered. He simply argues that his failure should
be excused because he made some payments and because one
payment was for more than he was required to make that month.
Because there was sufficient evidence to support revocation
due to Oliver's failure to pay, and because there were no
evidentiary objections or other adverse rulings related to
this ground, we affirm the revocation and grant the motion to
withdraw. The revocation for failure to pay makes any alleged
errors as to other grounds harmless.
only pro se point on appeal appears to be that "the
State of Arkansas has dropped all charges, " and that
the courts should set a date for his release. He attached
file-marked copies of the State's motion for nolle
prosequi and the court's order dismissing the charges of
first-degree terroristic threatening, third-degree domestic
battery, and the allegation of habitual-offender status in
the separate criminal prosecution stemming from the incident
in the car with Janice and Amita. Oliver's pro-se points
have no merit. First, as discussed above, the court also
revoked his SIS on the separate and independent ground of
failure to pay. Second, the State's decision to drop the
criminal prosecution of the subsequent crimes does not
necessarily mean that there was insufficient evidence
presented to the circuit court in this case to support a
finding that he committed those offenses, ...