Crump v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 416 ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 416ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-14-61
Opinion Delivered June 18, 2014
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
DAMIEN CRUMP COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
APPELLANT [NO. CR-2002-363]
V. HONORABLE BERLIN C. JONES,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k)(1) of the
Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Damien Crump’s attorney
brings this no-merit appeal along with a motion asking to be relieved as counsel. The
motion to withdraw is accompanied by a brief, including both a discussion of all matters in
the record that might arguably support an appeal and a statement as to why counsel
considers the points to be incapable of supporting a meritorious appeal. Crump filed pro se
points. We affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
The circuit court found Crump guilty of a felony hot-check violation and ordered
sixty months of probation subject to written conditions. The court extended his probation
twice for violating written conditions, including not reporting to his probation officer, not
paying his fines, fees, and restitution, not completing his community service, and
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 416committing new criminal offenses. The State filed a third petition to revoke alleging that
Crump violated his probation by testing positive for THC, failing to report to his
probation officer, failing to pay his fines and restitution, failing to complete his required
community service, and failing to complete his GED. The circuit court revoked his
probation, sentencing him to a total term of seven years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas
Department of Correction.
The State needs to show only one violation of probation in order to sustain a
revocation. Phillips v. State, 101 Ark. App. 190, 272 S.W.3d 123 (2008). Here, there was
testimony from Crump’s probation officer that he tested positive for THC in violation of
his probation. This was sufficient evidence for the court to find that Crump violated his
terms and conditions.
In his pro se points for reversal, Crump argues 1) that he did obtain his GED, but
did not realize the probation officer never received the certificate; 2) that he could not
obtain a job because he was at home taking care of his wife and child; 3) that the
probation officer that testified in his case should have come from the Little Rock office
instead of the Pine Bluff office; and 4) that the circuit court judge that heard his case may
have been tired and frustrated when he presided over Crump’s hearing. Pro se points
three and four were not raised at the hearing below and therefore we cannot consider
them on appeal. Williams v. State, 375 Ark. 132, 289 S.W.3d 97 (2008). Crump testified as
to points one and two, but the trial court did not find him credible. However, even had
the proof been insufficient to revoke for failure to pay fines and failure to obtain his GED,
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 416Crump admitted that he failed to report to his probation officer, and there was also
evidence that he failed a drug test.
From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find that counsel
has complied with the requirements of Rule 4-3(k)(1) and hold that there is no merit to
this appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the revocation is
affirmed.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
HARRISON and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
Potts Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Pamela A. Rumpz, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3