Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 406 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-13-755 Opinion Delivered June 18, 2014 JOSHUA FEATHERSTON APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [Nos. 17CR-11-72, 17CR-11-337] V. HONORABLE GARY COTTRELL, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPELLEE GRANTED LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge Appellant Joshua Featherston appeals from the revocation of his probation and resulting sentences of six years’ imprisonment for terroristic threatening, ten years’ imprisonment for criminal mischief (to run consecutive to the six-year sentence), and ten years’ suspended imposition of sentence in a second terroristic-threatening conviction. The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Featherston had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by committing criminal mischief, fleeing, resisting arrest, and being under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Featherston’s attorney has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) (2013), along with a motion to be relieved as counsel, asserting that there is no issue of arguable merit for an appeal. Featherston was notified, by certified mail, of his right to file pro se points for reversal but has not done so. The State has not filed a brief.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 406 The test for filing a no-merit brief is not whether there is any reversible error, but rather whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Tucker v. State, 47 Ark. App. 96, 885 S.W.2d 904 (1994). Based on our review of the record for potential error pursuant to Anders and the requirements of Rule 4-3(k), we hold that Featherston’s appeal is wholly without merit. Therefore, pursuant to sections (a) and (b) 1 of In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985), we issue this memorandum opinion granting counsel’s motion to be relieved and affirming the court’s revocation. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. WALMSLEY and GLOVER, JJ., agree. Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellant. No response. 1 (a) Where the only substantial question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence; (b) Where the opinion, or findings of fact and conclusions of law, of the trial court or agency adequately explain the decision and we affirm[.] 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.