Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 418 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CACR11-598 ALFRED JERMAINE SCOTT Opinion Delivered June 27, 2012 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR 2008-1181] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JOHN N. APPELLEE FOGLEMAN, JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED RITA W. GRUBER, Judge In a negotiated plea of January 26, 2009, Alfred Jermaine Scott was found guilty of delivery of cocaine and received ten years’ suspended imposition of sentence. On November 29, 2010, the State petitioned for revocation based upon violations of written conditions. By a judgment and commitment order of March 14, 2011, the circuit court granted the revocation and sentenced Scott to five years’ imprisonment with an additional five years’ suspended imposition of sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and in compliance with Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Scott’s attorney brings a no-merit appeal and a motion asking to be relieved as counsel. The motion to withdraw is accompanied by a brief including both a discussion of matters in the record that might arguably support an appeal and a statement as to why counsel considers the points to
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 418 be incapable of supporting a meritorious appeal. Scott has not filed points for reversal despite being notified by the clerk of this court of his right to do so. As a result, the State has not filed a brief. The State need show only one violation of probation in order to sustain a revocation. Phillips v. State, 101 Ark. App. 190, 272 S.W.3d 123 (2008). Here, at the conclusion of a revocation hearing, the circuit court found that Scott—by possessing a firearm and by associating with someone who he knew had committed a crime—had violated two written conditions of probation. From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find that counsel has complied with the requirements of Rule 4-3(k)(1) and hold that there is no merit to this appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the revocation is affirmed. Affirmed; motion granted. PITTMAN and HOOFMAN, 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.