STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
FROM THE OUACHITA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 52JV-15-152]
HONORABLE EDWIN KEATON, JUDGE
Gulley, public defender, for appellant.
D. VAUGHT, JUDGE.
September 23, 2015, the State filed a petition alleging that
T.S., a minor, should be adjudged a juvenile delinquent for
committing first-degree criminal mischief. After a bench
trial, the Ouachita County Circuit Court adjudicated T.S.
delinquent. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Arkansas Rules of the
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, counsel for T.S. has
filed a motion to be relieved as counsel and a brief arguing
that there is nothing in the record that would support an
appeal. The clerk of this court served T.S. with a
copy of her counsel's brief and notification of her right
to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within
thirty days. She has not availed herself of that opportunity.
In our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we
affirm the adjudication and grant the motion to be relieved
August 6, 2015, three individuals flattened the tires and
shattered the windows of Samuel Warren's vehicle. Warren
and Deundra Brown witnessed the incident. At trial, Warren
and Brown testified that they knew two of the individuals and
that T.S. was one of them.Warren said that T.S. was holding a
hammer. Warren and Brown reported the incident to the police
and advised them of T.S.'s involvement. Warren also
testified that after the incident, he sent T.S. a Facebook
message asking her why she had vandalized his car, and she
told him to stop harassing her. Warren's neighbor, Thomas
Melton, testified that he witnessed three individuals damage
Warren's vehicle. The police confirmed that Warren's
vehicle had been damaged.
grandmother, mother, brother, and T.S. testified that she
could not have vandalized Warren's vehicle because she
was at home all day "on punishment" on August 6.
T.S. said that Mitchell and another friend named
"Liberty" tried to convince T.S.'s mother to
let T.S. out of the house on August 6, but they failed. T.S.
testified that she and Warren had no problems between them;
however, she also testified that when she received a Facebook
message from Warren confronting her about his car, her
response to him was "stop harassing me." Based on
this evidence, at the conclusion of the trial, the circuit
court adjudicated T.S. delinquent, and this no-merit appeal
argument section of a no-merit brief "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." Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-3(k)(1) (2016). See also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
Eads v. State, 74 Ark.App. 363, 365, 47 S.W.3d 918,
919 (2001). The rule requires that the abstract and addendum
of a no-merit brief contain, in addition to the other
material parts of the record, all rulings adverse to the
defendant made by the circuit court. Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-3(k)(1). 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.
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.
no-merit appeal, T.S.'s counsel's brief abstracts and
discusses three evidentiary rulings that were adverse to T.S,
and counsel argues that these adverse rulings are not
meritorious grounds for reversal. We agree. The circuit court
did not abuse its discretion in granting the State's
three evidentiary objections.
only other adverse ruling was the circuit court's
delinquency finding. In reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence in a delinquency case, we apply the same standard of
review as in criminal cases; that is, we view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the State, considering only the
proof that tends to support the finding of guilt. T.D. v.
State, 2011 Ark.App. 486, at 2 (citing C.H. v.
State, 51 Ark.App. 153, 912 S.W.2d 942 (1995)). We will
affirm if the adjudication is supported by substantial
evidence, which is evidence that is of sufficient force and
character to compel a conclusion one way or the other without
resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id.
was adjudicated delinquent for committing first-degree
criminal mischief. A person commits the offense of criminal
mischief in the first degree if he or she purposely and
without legal justification destroys or causes damage to any
property of another. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-38-203(a)(1)
case at bar, substantial evidence supports the circuit
court's delinquency finding. The court found that two
witnesses to the incident, Warren and Brown, positively
identified T.S. as one of the people who damaged his car. The
evidence demonstrated that Warren and Brown knew T.S. and
that Warren knew her well. The court specifically found that
Warren's testimony was credible. Warren's neighbor
confirmed that three people vandalized Warren's vehicle,
and the police confirmed the damage.
circuit court further found that the testimony of T.S. and
her witnesses was not credible. The court did not believe
that they specifically remembered that on August 6-the day of
the incident-that T.S. was "on punishment." The
court also found T.S.'s response to Warren's Facebook
message odd in light of her testimony that she and Warren had
been on good terms and that she had nothing to do with the
vandalism. The court questioned why T.S.'s best friend
"Liberty" did not testify to corroborate T.S.'s
testimony, and the court suggested that T.S.'s brother
fit the description of the male who was involved in the
Accordingly, based on our review of the record and
counsel's brief, we hold that counsel has complied with
the requirements of Anders and Arkansas Supreme
Court Rule 4-3(k)(1) and that the appeal has no merit. We
therefore affirm ...