FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 23CR-16-285]
HONORABLE CHARLES E. CLAWSON, JR., JUDGE
& Johnston, by: Patrick J. Benca, for appellant.
KENNETH S. HIXSON, JUDGE
Christopher Richardson appeals after he was convicted by the
Faulkner County Circuit Court of failure to comply with
registration and reporting requirements and was placed on
sixty months' probation. Appellant's attorney has
filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel
pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2019) and
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that this appeal is wholly without merit. The motion is
accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings
below, alleged to include all objections and motions decided
adversely to appellant, and a brief in which counsel explains
why there is nothing in the record that would support an
appeal. The clerk of this court mailed a copy of
counsel's motion and brief to appellant's last-known
address informing him of his right to file pro se points for
reversal; however, he has not done so. Consequently, the
attorney general has not filed a brief in response. We grant
counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the convictions.
was charged by felony information with failure to comply with
registration and reporting requirements in violation of
Arkansas Code Annotated section 12-12-904. A bench trial was
held on August 1, 2018.
trial, Sex Offender Coordinator Vanda Phillips testified that
she oversaw appellant's compliance as a Level 3 sex
offender. After she received an anonymous tip, she and
Investigator Billy Kenney did a compliance check in March
2016. When she arrived at the RV park registered as his
address, appellant's trailer and vehicle were not located
in his assigned lot. She later located appellant's
trailer outside the entrance of the RV park by the side of
the road, and it had no electricity, water, or utilities
hooked to it. According to Ms. Phillips, Ms. Georgia Beard,
who stated that she collected the rent from anyone that lived
in the RV park, told her that appellant was not living there
anymore but was instead employed as an over-the-road truck
driver. Ms. Beard further reported that appellant would stay
with JoAnn Bradberry when he was not on the road. According
to Ms. Phillips, appellant had reported that his physical
address was at the RV park but that his mailing address was
the same address as Ms. Bradberry. Ms. Phillips further
testified that she was unable to verify his employment. Mr.
Kenney testified at trial and corroborated Ms. Phillips's
Beard testified at trial that she had told Ms. Phillips and
Mr. Kenney that appellant was in the process of moving and
that is why appellant's trailer had been moved. Ms. Beard
further testified that appellant had been receiving mail at
that address. However, on cross-examination, Ms. Beard
testified that appellant's trailer had been moved to
higher ground due to flooding but explained that it was
typically parked in appellant's assigned lot. She
additionally explained that appellant was a truck driver and
would always leave the utilities unhooked to his trailer
while he was away. Finally, Ms. Beard testified that
appellant had continued to pay rent for his lot.
the State rested its case, appellant moved for a directed
verdict arguing that the State had failed to meet
its burden of proof that he did not reside at the registered
address. The trial court denied his motion, and appellant
presented his defense. Two witnesses testified on his behalf.
Brian Bradberry testified that he was the landlord at the RV
park and that appellant always paid rent for his lot. Mr.
Bradberry explained that because appellant was away for work,
he had moved appellant's trailer due to potential
¶ooding issues and that appellant did not even know that
he had moved it at the time the compliance check took place.
Mr. Bradberry further testified that appellant was not living
with Mr. Bradberry's mother, JoAnn Bradberry, and that
appellant would merely disconnect the utilities to his
trailer when he was traveling for work. Ms. Bradberry
corroborated Mr. Bradberry's testimony. She testified
that appellant would leave his vehicle at her home when he
would travel for work; however, she denied that appellant was
living with her.
failed to renew his dismissal motion at the conclusion of all
the evidence. The trial court found appellant guilty and
placed him on sixty months' probation. This appeal
counsel explains that any challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence based on appellant's motion for a dismissal
would be wholly without merit. In order to preserve a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a criminal
defendant must make a specific motion for dismissal or for
directed verdict at the close of all the evidence.
Sellers v. State, 2013 Ark.App. 210, at 3-4 (citing
Colgan v. State, 2011 Ark.App. 77, at 1; Ark. R.
Crim. P. 33.1(b)-(c) (2010)). Rule 33.1 states in pertinent
(b) In a nonjury trial, if a motion for dismissal is to be
made, it shall be made at the close of all of the evidence.
. . . If the defendant moved for dismissal at the
conclusion of the prosecution's evidence, then the
motion must be renewed at the close of all of the evidence.
(c) The failure of a defendant to challenge the sufficiency
of the evidence at the times and in the manner required in
subsections (a) and (b) above will constitute a waiver of
any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence
to support the verdict or judgment.
Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b)-(c) (2019). It is well settled that
Rule 33.1 is strictly construed. Sellers,
supra. Failure to adhere to the requirements in Rule
33.1(b) "will constitute a waiver of any question
pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence to ...