FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 18CR-14-632]
HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR., JUDGE
Butler Bernard, Jr., for appellant.
a no-merit appeal filed on behalf of William Jones following
the Crittenden County Circuit Court's revocation of his
suspended imposition of sentence (SIS). We grant
counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm.
2014, Jones pleaded guilty to two counts of breaking or
entering and one count of theft of property. He was sentenced
to three years in the Arkansas Department of Correction and
three years SIS.
August 2016, the State sought to revoke Jones's SIS, and
a hearing was held on August 16, 2016. The court received
stipulated payment-history records prepared by the Crittenden
County Sheriff's Office. It also heard testimony from
Darrell Little and Cody Gross, police officers with the West
Memphis Police Department. Officer Little testified that on
February 5, 2016, he observed what he perceived to be odd
behavior by Jones when Jones was looking in dark windows of a
store at 9:00 at night. When Jones saw Little, Jones walked
toward his car and got in it. Little initiated a traffic stop
based on Jones's odd behavior. Little checked Jones's
ID, and dispatch advised him Jones was a parolee. Gross
arrived to assist and asked if he could search Jones's
car, and Jones consented. Gross testified that "as soon
as [he] opened the door" he saw a "crystalline rock
substance that appeared to be methamphetamine." The
substance field-tested positive as methamphetamine. Jones was
arrested. Gross then forwarded the substance to the Arkansas
State Crime Lab where it was confirmed to be methamphetamine.
That report was admitted into evidence.
conclusion of the hearing, the court found by a preponderance
of the evidence that Jones had violated the conditions that
he (1) live a law-abiding life, be of good behavior, and not
violate any state, federal, or municipal laws; (2) committed
possession of a controlled substance; and (3) failed to pay
toward his fines, fees, and costs.
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2017), Jones's
attorney has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw
addressing all of the adverse rulings made at the revocation
hearing, explaining why each adverse ruling is not a
meritorious ground for reversal, and requesting to be
relieved as counsel. Jones was provided with a copy of his
counsel's brief and motion and informed of his right to
file pro se points. He has not done so.
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
attorney correctly argues that any appeal stemming from the
court's adverse rulings related to Jones's failure to
live a law-abiding life and possession of controlled
substances would be frivolous because Jones's SIS was
also revoked 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. 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
Jones's failure to pay was introduced without objection,
and Jones did not dispute that he had failed to pay as
ordered. The revocation for failure to pay makes any alleged
errors as to other grounds harmless.
still, counsel also included in his brief five additional
rulings made at trial and explained why they would not
support a meritorious appeal. The objections made by trial
counsel included an objection to questioning that asked for a
conclusory answer and one when the State led the witness. In
both instances, the questions were rephrased, and thus there
were no rulings adverse to the appellant. The objections by
the State included two for questions that called for
speculation and one for a lack of foundation. We agree with
counsel that none of these rulings constituted reversible
thoroughly reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief
and conclude that Jones's counsel has adequately
explained why there is no meritorious ground for appeal.
Because there was sufficient evidence to support revocation
due to Jones's failure to pay and because there were no
evidentiary objections or other ...