i Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 336 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-15-649 Opinion Delivered June 22, 2016 JAMAAL DULANE SIMPSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2 012-7 04-1] HONORABLE ROBIN F. GREEN, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED; MOTION TO APPELLEE WITHDRAW GRANTED M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge The appellant, Jamaal Dulane Simpson, was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine) and possession of drug paraphemalia and was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive prison terms totaling sixty-five years. He previously appealed those convictions to this court. 'We found sufhcient merit in one of appellant's points for appeal to warrant a limited remand co the trial court for the purpose of holding a hearing to determine whether appellant had been competent at the time of his trial. See Simpson u. State,2015 Ark. App. 103, 455 S.W.3d 856. Thar hearing was held, after which the trial court entered an order finding that appellant had been fit to proceed to trial. Appellant has again appealed. Pursuant to Anders u. Callfornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k), appellant's attorney has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, stating that
Y .t Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 336 there is no merit to the appeal. The motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below and a brief in which counsel asserts that there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal. The clerk of this court served appellant with a copy of his counsel's brief and notified him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirry days. Appellant has filed no such statement. From our review ofthe record and the briefpresented to us, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and that an appeal would be wholly without merit. Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. 'WHITEAKER and HlxsoN, JJ., agree. Robert M. "Robby" Golden, for appellant. No response.
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.