Court of Appeals

Decision Information

Decision Content

Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 31 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CACR10-1295 Opinion Delivered January 11, 2012 ANTHONY DARNELL THOMPSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2009-480] V. HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR., JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED; MOTION TO APPELLEE WITHDRAW GRANTED JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge Appellant, Anthony Thompson, pled guilty to robbery in August 2009 and was placed on probation, subject to a number of conditions, for a period of four years. The State filed a petition to revoke appellants probation in June 2010. After a hearing, appellant was found to have inexcusably violated several conditions of his probation by failing to pay fines, court costs, and probation fees; failing to report to his probation officer; and failing to remain enrolled in and attend a GED course. The trial court revoked appellants probation and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. This appeal followed. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, appellants attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit. The motion is accompanied by an abstract, brief, and addendum referring to everything in the record that
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 31 might arguably support the appeal, together with a statement of reasons why none of the trial courts rulings would be a meritorious ground for reversal. The clerk of this court furnished appellant with a copy of his counsels brief and notified him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days. Appellant has not filed a statement of points. From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, counsels motion to withdraw is granted, and the order of revocation is affirmed. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. WYNNE and MARTIN, JJ., agree. C. Brian Williams, for appellant. No response. 2
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.