FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 46CR-16-253]
HONORABLE KIRK JOHNSON, JUDGE.
Phillip A. McGough, P.A., by: Phillip A. McGough, for
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Richard appeals the Miller County Circuit Court order
revoking his probation. 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,
Richard's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the
ground that this appeal is wholly without merit. The clerk
mailed a certified copy of counsel's motion and brief to
Richard, informing him of his right to file pro se points for
reversal. Richard has failed to file any points for reversal.
We affirm and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
April 12, 2016, Richard pled guilty to possession of a
controlled substance, and he was sentenced to sixty
months' probation. The terms and conditions of his
probation included that he not commit a criminal offense
punishable by imprisonment; not use, sell, distribute, or
possess any controlled substance; pay fines, fees, and court
costs; and report as directed to a supervising officer.
October 16, 2017, the State filed a petition for revocation
of Richard's probation. In the petition, the State
alleged that Richard had committed an offense against the law
of this, or any other State, or the United States; had failed
to report to his supervising officer as directed; had failed
to pay court-ordered financial obligations; and had failed to
pay the probation-supervision fee.
court held a revocation hearing on January 2, 2018. Following
the hearing, the court entered findings of fact wherein it
found that Richard had violated the terms and conditions of
his probation by committing a criminal offense punishable by
imprisonment, possessing a controlled substance, and failing
to report as ordered. The circuit court sentenced him to 120
months' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of
Correction. The court fined him an additional $150 in court
costs, a public-defender-user fee of $100, and a booking fee
appeal, we review probation-revocation orders to determine
whether the circuit court's findings are clearly against
the preponderance of the evidence. Jones v. State,
2013 Ark.App. 466. To revoke probation, the State has the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a
condition of probation was violated. Id. Evidence
that is insufficient to support a criminal conviction may be
sufficient to support a revocation. Joiner v. State,
2012 Ark.App. 380. Proof of just one violation of the terms
and conditions of release is sufficient to support
counsel argues that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal and asks to withdraw as counsel. A request to withdraw
on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit shall
be accompanied by a brief that contains a list of all rulings
adverse to appellant and an explanation as to why each ruling
is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-3(k)(1). The brief shall contain an argument section that
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.
case, counsel correctly notes that the only adverse rulings
were the court's denial of Richard's directed-verdict
motion and the revocation of Richard's probation. Counsel
provides sound analysis establishing that the circuit court
was correct in its ruling that there was sufficient evidence
to find that Richard had violated the terms and conditions of
his probation. We agree-the circuit court heard sufficient
evidence to find by a preponderance of the evidence that
Richard had violated his probation by committing a criminal
offense punishable by imprisonment and failing to report as
ordered. Specifically, Charnell Houff, Richard's
supervising officer, testified that on July 6, 2017, Richard
was arrested for domestic battery and was convicted on
December 21, 2017. Houff further testified that Richard had
failed to report to her as directed from July 2017 through
deciding whether to allow counsel to withdraw from appellate
representation, 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.
Williams v. State, 2013 Ark.App. 323. In this case,
we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k)(1) and Anders
and hold that there is no merit to this appeal.
motion to ...