FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT
[NO. 66FCR-12-334 ] HONORABLE J. MICHAEL FITZHUGH, JUDGE
Lancaster Law Firm, PLLC, by: Clinton W. Lancaster, for
WAYMOND M. BROWN, JUDGE
Justin Bray appeals from the Sebastian County Circuit
Court's order revoking his suspended imposition of
sentence (SIS) on the underlying charges of possession of
methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Appellant's counsel has filed a no-merit brief and motion
to withdraw, pursuant to Anders v. California,
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k),  stating that there are no
meritorious grounds to support an appeal. The clerk mailed a
certified copy of counsel's motion and brief to
appellant, informing him of his right to file pro se points
for reversal. Appellant has failed to file any points for
reversal. We affirm the revocation and grant counsel's
motion to withdraw.
4, 2012, appellant negotiated a plea of nolo contendere to
the charges of possession of methamphetamine, possession of
drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. He received
five years' SIS for the methamphetamine charge and the
paraphernalia charge; he received a one-year SIS on the
marijuana charge. He was also ordered to pay court costs and
fees. The sentencing order was filed on May 10, 2012.
State filed a petition to revoke appellant's SIS on July
16, 2014, alleging that appellant had violated the terms and
conditions of his SIS by committing new drug offenses and
failing to pay fees and costs as ordered. The State withdrew
its motion on August 29, 2014, following appellant's
approval for the drug-court program.
State filed a petition to revoke on April 4, 2017, alleging
that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his
SIS by committing aggravated assault on a household or family
member and by failing to pay fees and costs as ordered.
revocation hearing took place on September 7, 2017. Sarah
Montgomery testified that she and appellant had been engaged
and living together prior to March 25, 2017. She stated that
on March 25, she was in the process of moving out of
appellant's apartment and that they were arguing because
she had recently learned that appellant had been cheating on
her. She stated that appellant got up during their argument
and that they "kind of got in each other's faces and
he said something hateful" causing her to spit in his
face. She said that appellant then "got [her] to the
ground" and choked her. She stated that she went to grab
her purse when he let go of her but that he "put [her]
back down and choked [her] again." She testified that
appellant let her go and left the apartment after telling her
that he had called the police. She stated that she waited
approximately fifteen minutes for the police to arrive, but
they never came. She testified that she went to the police
station and filed a report after she left appellant's
apartment. She stated that the police took pictures of the
marks left around her neck by appellant.
Jose Pacheco of the Fort Smith Police Department testified
that he took Sarah's report on appellant on March 25,
2017. He said that he noticed red marks on Sarah's neck
when he was taking the report, so he took pictures of those
marks and attached them to the report. He testified that he
took appellant into custody later that day.
court found that appellant had violated the terms and
conditions of his SIS and sentenced him to three years'
imprisonment with an additional three years' SIS for each
underlying charge. The sentences were to run concurrently to
each other. The sentencing order was filed on October 3,
2017. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on October 6,
compliance with Anders and Rule 4-3(k), counsel
ordered the entire record and found that after a
conscientious review of the record, there are no issues of
arguable merit for appeal. Counsel's brief adequately
covered all the adverse rulings as well as the revocation
itself. After carefully examining the record and the brief
presented to us, we hold that counsel has complied with the
requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for
no-merit appeals in criminal cases and conclude that the
appeal is wholly without merit.
motion to ...