Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 559 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III No. CR-19-691
Opinion Delivered December 9, 2020 RECO WALKER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE INDEPENDENCE COUNTY V. CIRCUIT COURT [NOS. 32CR-15-208 & 32CR-15-212]
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE TIM WEAVER, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE RELIEVED GRANTED
N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge
This is a no-merit appeal filed on behalf of appellant Reco Walker following the
revocation of Walker’s probation. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Ark. Sup.
Ct. R. 4-3(k) (2019). We determined that counsel’s initial brief was not compliant with
the legal requirements for a no-merit brief, we ordered counsel to rebrief the appeal, and
we denied counsel’s initial motion to be relieved. Walker v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 349, 604
S.W.3d 611. Counsel’s substituted brief, which has corrected the earlier-identified
deficiencies, is accompanied by a motion to be relieved as counsel, both of which were
mailed to Walker at his last known address. Walker did not file any pro se points for reversal.
We affirm the revocation of Walker’s probation, and we grant counsel’s motion to be
relieved.
Walker pleaded guilty in August 2016 to attempted delivery of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine) and possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine). He was
placed on a five-year term of probation. The State filed a revocation petition in February
2019 alleging that Walker had violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for
marijuana, failing to report, failing to provide proof of employment or enrollment in an
educational program, failing to pay fines, and failing to complete any of his court-ordered
community-service hours. After a hearing, the circuit court revoked Walker’s probation,
finding that he had violated multiple conditions of probation, and sentenced him to four
years’ imprisonment on each count. This appeal followed.
In considering a no-merit brief, we must determine whether, after a full examination
of the proceedings, there is any nonfrivolous basis for an appeal. Bohanon v. State, 2020 Ark.
App. 22, 594 S.W.3d 92. The test is not whether there is any reversible error but whether
an appeal would be wholly frivolous. See Macleod v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 388. Counsel’s
brief must contain a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court on
all objections, motions, and requests made by either party with an explanation as to why
each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Walker, supra.
Counsel abstracted and addressed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
circuit court’s decision to revoke. The State alleged multiple violations of the conditions of
Walker’s probation, several of which Walker acknowledged. We agree with counsel that
there is no issue of arguable merit to raise on appeal of the sufficiency of the evidence to
revoke probation.
Counsel abstracted and addressed the denial of defense counsel’s motion for
continuance requested at the beginning of the hearing. Counsel asked for a continuance
stating that Walker was currently complying with his probation conditions and wanted to
2
remain free to continue his compliance. A circuit court’s decision to grant or deny a
continuance will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion amounting to a denial of
justice. Dye v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 234, 576 S.W.3d 73. We agree with counsel that the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that there is no issue
of arguable merit concerning this adverse ruling.
Counsel abstracted and addressed an adverse ruling on defense counsel’s hearsay
objection raised during the testimony of a State’s witness. As noted by the circuit court and
now by appellate counsel, the rules of evidence do not strictly apply in probation-revocation
proceedings. See Ark. R. Evid. 1101(b)(3) (2019); Whitmore v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 44,
539 S.W.3d 596. Regardless, any alleged evidentiary error would be harmless in light of
the overwhelming evidence of multiple violations unrelated to the purported hearsay
testimony. See Brock v. State, 70 Ark. App. 107, 14 S.W.3d 908 (2000). There could be no
issue of arguable merit to raise on appeal of this adverse ruling.
Having reviewed this appeal under the appropriate standards, we hold that there is
no merit to this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Walker’s probation and
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to be relieved granted.
VIRDEN and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Denton and Zachary, PLLC, by: Joe A. Denton, for appellant.
One brief only.
3