Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 28 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CACR09-1361 WILLIE WELLS, III Opinion Delivered JANUARY 12, 2011 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR2008-1233] V. HONORABLE RANDY F. PHILHOURS, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED; MOTION TO APPELLEE WITHDRAW GRANTED RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge Willie Wells, III, pleaded guilty to witness bribery in February 2009. The circuit court sentenced him to twenty-four months’ probation and ordered him to pay just over $1000 in fines, costs, and fees. Wells was to pay $50 a month on this obligation beginning in April 2009. The State filed a petition to revoke Wells’s probation in July 2009 and amended its petition about a month later. The State alleged that Wells had 1) failed to pay his fines, costs, and fees; 2) failed to report to his probation officer; 3) failed to pay his probation supervision fees; 4) failed to notify the sheriff of his current address and employment; 5) committed second-degree battery; and 6) committed the offense of fleeing. After a hearing, the circuit court revoked Wells’s probation, sentenced him to sixty months’ imprisonment, and ordered him to pay $1020 in restitution. Wells, acting pro se, filed various motions both before and
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 28 after the revocation hearing, which the circuit court denied. Wells’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and moves to withdraw. In response, Wells has filed pro se points for reversal. We affirm and grant counsel’s motion. Under Rule 4-3(k)(1) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, a motion to be relieved as counsel based on counsel’s belief that the appeal is wholly without merit must be accompanied by a brief. The brief’s argument section must contain a list of each adverse ruling and explain why none p rovide a meritorious ground for reversal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1). The brief’s abstract and addendum, in addition to covering all the material parts of the record, must also contain each adverse ruling. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4- 3(k)(1). Appellant’s counsel must follow the appropriate procedure in these cases as “[t]his framework is a method of ensuring that indigents are afforded their constitutional rights.” Caldwell v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 526, at 2, 334 S.W.3d 82, 83. Here, Wells’s counsel’s brief complies with Rule 4-3(k)(1). And after carefully reviewing the record, we agree with Wells’s counsel’s conclusion: there are no issues of arguable merit on appeal. The circuit court’s finding that Wells violated at least one condition of his probation, thereby warranting revocation, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Foster v. State, 104 Ark. App. 108, 109–10, 289 S.W.3d 476, 477 (2008). Likewise, any appeal based on the circuit court’s denial of Wells’s several pre- and post-hearing pro se motions would be wholly without merit. Lastly, Wells’s pro se points for reversal on appeal are either a repeat of the arguments he made in his earlier motions or not -2-
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 28 preserved for appellate review. In short, Wells’s pro se points on appeal are wholly without merit as well. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s revocation decision and grant Wells’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. PITTMAN and GLADWIN, JJ., agree. -3-
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.