FROM THE LOGAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT [NO.
42PCR-16-38], HONORABLE JERRY DON RAMEY, JUDGE
N. Jeffrey, Attorney at Law, by: Robert N. Jeffrey, for
S. HIXSON, Judge
Appellant Dustin Kampmann pleaded guilty to possession of a
controlled substance with intent to deliver, and on December
15, 2016, the trial court entered a sentencing order placing
Kampmann on six years probation. Kampmanns written
conditions of probation prohibited him from committing a
criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and from using
any controlled substance.
December 1, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke
Kampmanns probation, alleging that he had violated his
conditions by possessing drug paraphernalia on October 18,
2017, and by admitting to using
marijuana and Xanax on October 25, 2017. After a revocation
hearing, the trial court found that Kampmann violated his
conditions by possessing drug paraphernalia. On June 20,
2018, the trial court entered a sentencing order revoking
Kampmanns probation and sentencing him to four years in
prison. Kampmann now appeals from the revocation of his
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.
1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule
4-3(k)(1), Kampmanns counsel has filed a no-merit brief
wherein counsel asserts that this appeal is without merit.
Kampmanns counsels abstract, brief, and addendum contain
all the adverse rulings and an explanation as to why each
ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Kampmanns
counsel has also filed a motion to be relieved. Kampmann was
provided a copy of his counsels brief and notified of his
right to file a list of pro se points for reversal, but he
has filed no points. Having reviewed the record before us, we
conclude that this appeal is without merit and, we affirm the
Kampmanns probation officer, Paul Clifford, was the only
witness to testify at the revocation hearing. Mr. Clifford
testified that on October 18, 2017, he and other officers
conducted a random search of Kampmanns residence where he
lived with his grandmother. When Mr. Clifford arrived at the
residence he made contact with Kampmanns grandmother, who
was also on probation. According to Mr. Clifford, he observed
Kampmann exit a back bedroom at the end of the hallway.
Kampmann came out of the bedroom, Mr. Clifford immediately
detected an odor of marijuana. Mr. Clifford asked Kampmann
which room was his, and Kampmann stated that his bedroom was
the room he had just exited. Mr. Clifford searched Kampmanns
bedroom and found a glass smoking device, which in his
experience is commonly used for inhaling methamphetamine. The
officers also found a cut straw in Kampmanns bedroom. These
items were sent to the Arkansas State Crime Lab, and the
straw tested positive for methamphetamine residue. Mr.
Clifford stated that there were no other persons in
Kampmanns bedroom when he came out. Kampmann told Mr.
Clifford that some friends had been over and must have left
the items in his room. On cross-examination, Mr. Clifford
testified that during an October 25, 2017 probation visit,
Kampmann admitting to using marijuana and Xanax. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that
Kampmann violated his conditions of probation by possessing
the smoking device and the straw.
this no-merit appeal, Kampmanns counsel accurately states
that the only adverse ruling below was the trial courts
decision to revoke Kampmanns probation. A trial court may
revoke a defendants probation if it finds by a preponderance
of the evidence that the defendant has violated a condition
of the probation. Atteberry v. State, 2016 Ark.App.
331, 2016 WL 3563254. The State bears the burden of proof,
but it need only prove that the defendant committed one
violation of the conditions. Lewis v. State, 2015
Ark.App. 222, 2015 WL 1598103. Evidence that is insufficient
to support a criminal conviction may be sufficient to support
a revocation of probation. Richard v. State, 2018
Ark.App. 362, 553 S.W.3d 783. On appeal, the trial courts
decision will not be reversed unless it is clearly against
the preponderance of the evidence. Mosley v. State,
2016 Ark.App. 353, 499 S.W.3d 226.
Kampmanns counsels brief, he correctly asserts that there
can be no meritorious challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the ...