2015 Ark. App. 21 reNSAS COURT DIVISION No. CR-13-1 RODRIGO CANTU APPELLANT STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE KENNETH S. HIXSON, Appellant Rodrigo Cantu pleaded guilry August 27,2070, and he was placed on three years' State filed a petition to revoke Mr. Cantu's probation, alleging failure to report to probation as directed. After a hearing, the September 3,2073, revoking appellant's probation and sentencing followed by a ten-year suspended imposition revocation, and we affirm. Pursuant to Anders u. California,3S6 U.S. of the Arkansas Supreme Court, appellant's the grounds that the appeal is wholly without merit. accompanied by a brief discussing all matters in the record that might arguably supportOF APPEALS II 091 Opinion Delivered JANUARY 2'1,, 201,5 APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-10-951] HONORABLEJOHN N. FOGLEIVIAN, JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTET) Judge to Ewo counts of Class B felony forgery on probation. On September 10, 2072, the multiple violations including trial court entered an order on him to five years in prison ofsentence. Mr. Cantu now appeals from his 738 (1,967), and Rule 4-3(kX1) ofthe Rules counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on Mr. Cantu's counsel's motion was
2015 Ark. App. 21 an appeal, including any objections and motions court, and a statement ofthe reason why each Mr. Cantu was provided a copy of his counsel's brief points for reversal, but he has not filed any points. Mr. Cantu's conditions of probation required him to report to probation as Michael Alston, appellant's probation officer, testified that probation only once during the past year. Mr. had failed to report to probation as directed, and scheduled visits. The trial couft revoked Mr. Cantu's Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-308(d) finds by a preponderance of the evidence that with a condition of probation, the court may revoke the expiration of the probarion. A court may revoke the period of probation if, before expiration probation violation. Ark. Code Ann. $ 16-93-308(0(1).' On appeal, the will not be reversed unless it is clearly against the State,2014 Ark. App. 365. lAlthough Mr. Cantu's probation was revoked one probation period would have expired, his counsel was arrested for the probation violation before court had jurisdiction to revoke appellant's made by appellant and denied by the trial point raised cannot arguably support an appeal. and notified of his right to file pro se directed. Mr. Cantu had reported to Alston acknowledged in his testimony that he he provided no excuse for missing his probation based on his failure to report. (Supp. 2013) provides that, if a court the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply probation at any rime prior to the probation subsequent to the expiration of of the period, the defendant is arrested for the trial court's decision preponderance of the evidence. May u. week after the original points out in his brief that Mr. Cantu the probation expired. Therefore, the trial probation.
2015 Ark. App. 21 In the present appeal, the only advene ruling appellant's probation, and appellant's counsel accurately asserts that there meritorious challenge to the sufficiency of clearly demonstrated that Mr. Cantu had Mr. Canru provided no reasonable excuse for his failure to report. Therefore, the decision to revoke appellant's probation was not evidence. Based on our review of the record and been compliance with Rule 4-3(kX1) and that the appeal is without merit. Consequently, appellant's counsel's motion to be relieved Affirmed; motion ganted. Glno'vnN, CJ., and WHITEAKER, J., was the trial court's decision to revoke can be no the evidence suppofting revocation. The State failed to report as directed to probation, and trial court's clearly against the preponderance of the the briefpresented, we conclude that there has is granted and the judgment is affirmed. agree.
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.