Court of Appeals

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 329

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

division I

No. CR-22-483

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

This case arises out of a petition to revoke (PTR) filed in a Johnson County Circuit Court case. It is a companion to another case handed down today: Skaggs v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 325, which arises out of a PTR filed in a Franklin County Circuit Court case (Skaggs I). Both are no-merit appeals stemming from the revocation of a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS).

Appellant Carl Skaggs’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to be relieved pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b)(1) (2022), stating that there are no meritorious grounds to support an appeal. Skaggs filed pro se points, and the State has filed a brief in response. The no-merit brief, Skaggs’s pro se points, and the State’s response filed in this case are identical to those filed in Skaggs I.

A circuit court’s revocation of an SIS will be affirmed on appeal unless the decision is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Cessna v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 9, at 4. Sufficient evidence that the appellant violated any one SIS condition is all that is required to revoke. Id. This court defers to the circuit court’s determinations regarding witness credibility and the weight to be accorded testimony. Id.

In this case, Skaggs was convicted of felony theft of property and sentenced to thirty-six months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) and thirty-six months’ SIS, along with court costs and fees. Skaggs’s SIS was revoked on the basis of evidence presented by the State at a combined revocation hearing as detailed in Skaggs I, after which he was sentenced to thirty-six months in the ADC to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Skaggs I. Thus, every ruling adverse to Skaggs in this appeal is the same as those discussed in Skaggs I.[1] In Skaggs I, we agreed with counsel that Skaggs had no meritorious claim regarding the revocation or sentencing. We likewise determined in Skaggs I that none of Skaggs’s pro se points could support a meritorious appeal. The same is true here for the reasons set out in Skaggs I. From our review of the record and the brief presented, we conclude that counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders and Rule 4-3 and hold that the appeal in this case would be wholly without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

Gladwin and Klappenbach, JJ., agree.

Samuel F. Eastman, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Davie L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.