JACKIE D. HOWARD APPELANT
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 46CR-17-229]
HONORABLE BRENT HALTOM, JUDGE
Phillip a. McGough, P.A., by: Phillip A. McGough, for
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson,
Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
no-merit appeal, the Miller County Circuit Court revoked
Jackie Howard's probation and sentenced him to six years
in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k), Howard's counsel has
filed a motion to be relieved as his attorney, alleging that
this appeal is without merit. Counsel has also filed a brief
in which he contends that all adverse rulings have been
abstracted and discussed. Howard was provided with a copy of
his counsel's brief and motion and informed of his right
to file pro se points, which he has chosen to do. Because our
review of the record reveals an issue on which an appeal may
not be wholly frivolous, we order rebriefing in adversary
form and deny counsel's motion to withdraw.
pleaded guilty in April 2017 to third-degree domestic battery
and was sentenced to a six-year term of probation. For some
reason, the sentencing order was not entered until July 7,
2017. The State filed a petition to revoke Howard's
probation on June 19, 2017, and on July 25, Howard admitted
the violations. He received a sixty-day jail sanction with
eleven days of jail time credited to the sanction, and the
circuit court reinstated his probation with added costs and
fees ordered to be paid.
State filed another petition to revoke on August 9, 2018,
alleging six violations of probation. Following the
revocation hearing on October 2, the circuit court revoked
Howard's probation specifically for failure to pay,
failure to report to probation, failure to maintain an
address, and Howard's admission of drug use while on
probation. The circuit court sentenced him to six years in
the Arkansas Department of Correction.
compliance with the directive in Anders and Rule
4-3(k), counsel claims that he has thoroughly examined the
record of this proceeding but found no error that would
support an appeal. Counsel's no-merit brief appropriately
discusses the sufficiency of the evidence to support
Howard's revocation. Counsel fails, however, to
adequately address Howard's jail-time credit.
no-merit brief, counsel notes, "A final point in
appellant's case needs to be addressed regarding the
credit he received for time spent incarcerated." At the
revocation hearing, after the circuit court had explained its
ruling, the following colloquy occurred.
The Court: And he's got some time on this case, and that
would be since the date of arrest on August 10, of 2018.
That's when he was arrested on this revocation.
Defense Counsel: What about any prior time, prior to this?
The Court: Any time he had that he served on this case before
that, he gets credit for that, also. Of course. I just know
when the revo was served.
Defense Counsel: And, Your Honor, what I would argue that, if
he got sanctioned, where you're giving him the maximum,
if he doesn't get jail credit that would violate, he
would essentially do more time than the statute allows.
The Court: Do you want me to look back and see when he got
his first thing, I'll be ...