Goodman v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 528 ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 528
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-13-649
Opinion Delivered October 1, 2014
BRANDY MICHELLE GOODMAN APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-08-207]
V.
HONORABLE BARBARA ELMORE,
STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Brandy Goodman’s probation was revoked on the underlying charge of
endangering the welfare of a minor after the trial court found that she had violated the terms
and conditions of her probation. She was sentenced to two years in the Community
Correction Center. Pursuant to Anders v. California1 and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-
3(k), appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that an appeal would
be wholly without merit. Appellant was notified of her right to file pro se points for reversal;
however, she has not done so. We affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.2
1
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
This case returns to us for a third time. We have twice denied counsel’s motion to
withdraw. See Goodman v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 326, and Goodman v. State, 2014 Ark. App.
45.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 528
Appellant’s revocation hearing took place on March 27, 2013. At the hearing, Brad
Coyle, appellant’s probation officer, testified that appellant had violated several conditions of
her probation, including: testing positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine, failing to
report for a drug assessment, failing to report for scheduled office visits, being arrested and
charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, and being arrested and charged with
shoplifting.
Appellant testified that she had made some strides and had done her best to comply
with the terms and conditions of her probation. She stated that she was not guilty of the
shoplifting charge, although she had been found guilty. She testified that she did not fail to
report to her probation officer, but insisted that the appointments were rescheduled after she
called in.
The court found appellant in violation of the terms and conditions of her probation
and sentenced her to two years in the Community Correction Center. This timely appeal
followed.
An attorney’s request to withdraw from appellate representation based upon a meritless
appeal must be accompanied by a brief that contains a list of all rulings adverse to his client
that were made on any objection, motion, or request made by either party.3 The argument
section of the brief must contain an explanation of why each adverse ruling is not a
meritorious ground for reversal.4 This court is bound to perform a full examination of the
3
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
4
Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363, 47 S.W.3d 918 (2001).
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 528
proceedings as a whole to decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous.5 Our supreme court
has held that the failure to abstract and discuss any adverse ruling in an Anders brief necessitates
rebriefing.6
The State needs to show only one violation of probation in order to sustain a
revocation.7 Here, appellant’s probation officer testified to a number of violations by
appellant. This testimony was sufficient for the trial court to find appellant violated her
probation.
From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find compliance with
Anders and Rule 4-3(k).8 We agree with counsel that an appeal in this case would be wholly
without merit. Therefore, we affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
GLADWIN, C.J., and WOOD, J., agree.
The Lane Firm, by: Jonathan T. Lane, for appellant.
No response.
5
Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001).
6
Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16, 362 S.W.3d 877.
7
Phillips v. State, 101 Ark. App. 190, 272 S.W.3d 123 (2008).
8
The State originally filed a petition to revoke appellant’s probation on July 6, 2012.
It subsequently sought to withdraw its request, and the trial court filed an order on October
12, 2012, withdrawing the State’s original petition. The State filed a new petition on
November 2, 2012. At the revocation hearing, counsel argued that the State’s evidence
should be limited to allegations not included in the original petition. The court found that
the petition was withdrawn, not dismissed, and allowed the State to rely on allegations
contained in the original petition at the revocation hearing. Counsel correctly notes that the
withdrawal of the petition is not the same as a dismissal, and, therefore, does not constitute
an affirmative defense of former prosecution for the same offense.
3