FROM THE WASHINGTON CO U NTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO.
72CR-13-1369-6] HONORABLE MARK LINDSAY, JUDGE
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Standridge, for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Amanda Jegley, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee
M. GLOVER, Judge
2013, Markel Taivon Eubanks entered a negotiated guilty plea
to the underlying offense of theft by receiving, a Class D
felony, and received forty-eight months'
probation.On May 5, 2015, the State filed its motion
for revocation of probated sentence, and on October 7, 2015,
the day before the revocation hearing, the State filed an
amended motion for revocation. Following the October 8, 2015
hearing, the trial court found that Eubanks had violated the
terms and conditions of his probation and revoked it,
sentencing him to six years in the Arkansas Department of
Correction, with 274 days of jail-time credit.
Eubanks's counsel has asked to withdraw, asserting that an
appeal in this case would be wholly without merit. He has
filed a motion and brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the
Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Our
rule and Anders require that counsel file an
abstract and addendum of the proceedings below, including all
motions and objections decided adversely to the appellant,
along with a brief in which counsel explains why there is
nothing in the record that would support a meritorious
clerk of this court attempted to deliver to Eubanks by
certified mail a copy of counsel's motion to withdraw and
the accompanying brief, mailing the packet first to
Eubanks's last-known address at the Arkansas Department
of Correction in Newport, Arkansas. The packet was returned
to the clerk's office with a signed, certified-mail
return receipt dated June 15, 2016. The Arkansas Department
of Correction also attempted to forward the packet to Eubanks
at a Fayetteville address, but that delivery was
unsuccessful, too, and the packet was returned to the
clerk's office. The clerk's office contacted counsel,
who informed our clerk that Eubanks was on probation. Our
clerk made yet another attempt to mail the packet to the
Springdale address included in Eubanks's bond paperwork
on July 18, 2016, but the packet was again returned on August
explains that there were only two adverse rulings and that
neither ruling would support a meritorious basis for
reversal. In one ruling, the trial court overruled
counsel's objection to the introduction of State's
Exhibit 1, which was Eubanks's payment record from the
circuit clerk's office. Counsel objected because the
exhibit included information from a 2010 case that was not
pertinent to the issue before the trial court. The trial
court explained that the proceeding was not a jury trial and
that it would be able to ignore the portions of the exhibit
that were not relevant. We agree that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in allowing this exhibit and that the
ruling provides no meritorious basis for reversal.
other adverse ruling was the denial of counsel's
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
various bases for revocation. Counsel explains that a single
violation of probation conditions provides a sufficient basis
for the revocation of probation and then lists the conditions
the trial court found were violated by Eubanks, explaining
why the trial court did not clearly err with respect to any
of the findings. Because one violation is sufficient to
support a revocation, we address only the first violation
found by the trial court, although counsel explains why each
is not clearly erroneous. One of the conditions of
Eubanks's probation was that he pay designated fines and
fees. As explained by the trial court, a representative from
the Washington County Circuit Clerk's office testified
that Eubanks was behind $1, 865 in his payments that were
collected through her office and that, even if installment
fees were removed from that total, Eubanks had not "paid
one nickel" to the clerk's office.
on our review of the record and the briefs presented to this
court, we conclude that there has been full compliance with
Anders, supra, and our Rule 4-3(k), and
that an appeal in this case would be wholly without merit.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the revocation of
Eubanks's probation is affirmed.
motion to withdraw granted.
Whiteaker and ...