HERBERT PARMER, JR. APPELLANT
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
FROM THE HEMPSTEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 29CR-13-5-1]
HONORABLE RANDY WRIGHT, JUDGE.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.
Anthony S. Biddle, for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Amanda S. Jegley, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
J. GLADWIN, Judge.
a no-merit appeal from the revocation of appellant Herbert
Parmer, Jr.'s, probation. Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) (2016)
of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals, Parmer's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit. The
motion is accompanied by an abstract and brief referring to
everything in the record that might arguably support an
appeal and a statement of reasons why none of those rulings
would be a meritorious ground for appeal. Parmer has filed
pro se points for reversal, and the State has filed a brief
asserting that his arguments are either barred or without
merit. We affirm and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
pled no contest on September 16, 2013, to delivery of
methamphetamine, was sentenced to ten years' probation,
and ordered to pay a fine, costs, and fees. Parmer was
subject to conditions of probation filed on October 10, 2013.
The State filed a petition to revoke on November 21, 2014,
and alleged that Parmer had violated his probation conditions
by testing positive or admitting to having used
methamphetamines on May 8, 2014, June 16, 2014, July 15,
2014, and August 11, 2014. Parmer also had failed to graduate
from a substance-abuse education class because he had not
been able to pass a drug test. Further, it was alleged that
Parmer had failed to report as directed for a substance-abuse
education class. Finally, it was alleged that Parmer had been
directed to report to probation on May 6, 2014, and he had
failed to do so.
State filed a second petition for revocation on June 9, 2015,
alleging that Parmer had violated his probation by offering a
urine specimen that was not his for drug testing. That sample
was cold and tested negative for illicit drugs. The second
test he took that day tested positive for amphetamines.
State filed an amended petition for revocation on October 19,
2015, and re-alleged the violations as set forth in the
previous two petitions. The State included that Parmer had
graduated from the substance-abuse education class on January
5, 2015, and Parmer had not reported to his probation
officers from June 2, 2015, to October 6, 2015, when he had
been released from jail. The State filed another amended
petition on November 5, 2015, and added that on October 20,
2015, and October 21, 2015, Parmer had tested positive for
revocation hearing held January 19, 2016, Christian Williams
testified that he was Parmer's parole officer and that
Parmer had tested positive or had admitted to having used
drugs as stated on the alleged dates in the petitions for
revocation. He said that Parmer had tested positive for drugs
seven out of twelve times. Williams also testified regarding
the drug test for which Parmer had provided someone
else's urine for testing.
testified that he agreed with all the testimony provided by
Williams and admitted having a drug problem. He asked the
circuit court for help in being placed in a rehabilitation
program. He admitted testing positive the last time he had
appeared in court, that he had a drug problem, and that he
had been lying. He admitted bringing in someone else's
urine to be tested and said he had been jailed for seven days
as a result. Mallory Evans testified that she worked for
Arkansas Community Correction, that she had read the results
of the drug test done on Parmer on the day of trial, and that
it was negative, "but the faint line would make me think
that he had used in the past three or four days."
trial court found that the allegations in the revocation
petition were true and sentenced Parmer to four years in the
Arkansas Department of Correction with a judicial transfer to
the Regional Punishment Facility. This timely appeal
contends that there are no nonfrivolous issues that would
support an appeal in this case. We agree. Counsel discusses
the sole objection that was raised during the hearing. When
the State moved to introduce State's Exhibit 2, which was
a collective bundle of certified copies of Parmer's
convictions in Texas, the following colloquy occurred:
Defense Counsel: The only thing I've got to say about
that, Your Honor, is those cases are ten years ...