APPEAL
FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NOS. 17CR-09-315,
17CR-12-241, 17CR-13-50], HONORABLE GARY COTTRELL, JUDGE
Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellant.
One
brief only.
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, JUDGE
The
Crawford County Circuit Court revoked Michael Dye's
suspended sentences in case numbers CR-09-315, CR-12-241, and
CR-13-50, and sentenced him to 144 months' imprisonment
and 96 months' suspended sentence. Pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k)(1)
of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals, Dye's attorney has filed a no-merit brief, along
with a motion to withdraw as counsel, asserting that there is
no issue of arguable merit for an appeal. Dye was notified of
his right to file pro se points for reversal via certified
mail, but he has not done so. We affirm the revocation and
grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
On
March 1, 2010, Dye pled guilty to possession of
methamphetamine in case number CR-09-315. The court sentenced
him to 24 months in a regional correctional facility (RCF)
followed by 96 months' suspended sentence. His suspended
sentence was conditioned on good behavior.
On
March 7, 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke Dye's
suspended sentence in case number CR-09-315. The State
alleged that Dye had committed the new offenses of theft of
property, residential burglary, and failure to appear in case
number CR-12-241 and second-degree forgery in case number
CR-13-50.
On
March 13, 2013, Dye pled guilty to the charges of theft of
property, residential burglary, and failure to appear in case
number CR-12-241 and second-degree forgery in case number
CR-13-50. The court sentenced him to 24 months in an RCF and
120 months' suspended sentence. His suspended sentence
was conditioned on good behavior.
On June
27, 2017, the State filed a petition to revoke Dye's
suspended sentence in case numbers CR-09-315, CR-12-241, and
CR-13-50. In the petition, the State alleged that on June 14,
2017, Dye had committed the offenses of felon in possession
of a firearm, possession of methamphetamine, and possession
of drug paraphernalia. The State charged him as a habitual
offender. The court set a revocation hearing for August 23,
but Dye did not appear for the hearing.
On
September 14, the State amended its petition to revoke to
allege that Dye had failed to appear for the August 23
revocation hearing. The State further alleged that on July 2,
Dye had committed the offense of fleeing on foot in case
number VAS-17-1789, and that on July 27, Dye had failed to
appear in that case.
The
court held a second revocation hearing on September 20. At
the beginning of the hearing, Dye requested a continuance due
to health issues. The court inquired whether Dye had a
doctor's note, and Dye responded that he did not. The
court then denied the continuance, noting that the hearing
had already been continued once due to Dye's failure to
appear.
At the
conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Dye had
violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence
by failing to appear for the August revocation hearing and by
committing the offense of felon in possession of a firearm.
As previously stated, the court sentenced him to 144
months' imprisonment and 96 months' suspended
sentence. This no-merit appeal followed.
On
appeal of a revocation, we review whether the circuit
court's findings are clearly against the preponderance of
the evidence. Jones v. State, 2013 Ark.App. 466. To
revoke a suspended sentence, the State has the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition
of the suspended sentence 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
revocation. Richardson v. State, 85 Ark.App. 347,
157 S.W.3d 536 (2004).
Dye's
counsel argues that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal and asks to withdraw as counsel. A request to withdraw
because the appeal is wholly without merit must 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 must 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.
Id. In deciding whether to allow counsel to withdraw
from appellate representation, the ...