Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 537 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CACR 07-1216 Opinion Delivered July 1, 2009 ROBERT L. BROWN APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, [NO. CR-89-210] V. HONORABLE DAVID BURNETT, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE RELIEVED GRANTED COURTNEY HUDSON HENRY, Judge In January 1990, appellant Robert L. Brown pled guilty to the offense of burglary for which the trial court suspended imposition of sentence for twenty years. In June 2007, the State filed a petition to revoke alleging that appellant violated the terms of his suspended sentence by delivering cocaine. After a hearing, the trial court granted the petition to revoke and sentenced appellant to ten years in prison. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that this appeal is wholly without merit. Accompanying this motion, counsel has filed a brief which contains an abstract, addendum, and argument section listing all adverse rulings made by the circuit court with an explanation as to why each adverse
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 537 ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. 1 The clerk of this court sent appellant a copy of counsel’s brief and notified him of the right to raise pro se points on appeal. Appellant chose not to file any points on appeal. After a careful review of the record and counsel’s brief, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and conclude that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to be relieved and affirm the revocation of appellant’s suspended imposition of sentence. Affirmed; motion granted. KINARD and BAKER, JJ., agree. Shaun Hair, for appellant. No response. 1 In a previous opinion, we ordered rebriefing because counsel’s original brief did not list or discuss two adverse rulings. Brown v. State, CACR07-1216 (June 25, 2008). -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.