Opinion
No. CACR12-878
05-15-2013
BRYAN LEWIS APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
C. Brian Williams, for appellant. No response.
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-1006-34B]
HONORABLE JOHN N. FOGLEMAN,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
RHONDA K. WOOD , Judge
On September 9, 2010, the Crittenden County Circuit Court entered a judgment and disposition order following Bryan Lewis's negotiated plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance. The court sentenced Lewis to 120 months' probation and ordered him to pay fines, fees, and restitution.
The State filed a petition to revoke the probated sentence on May 24, 2012. The petition included the following alleged violations: failure to pay fines, costs, and fees as directed; failure to report to probation as directed; failure to pay probations fees; failure to notify sheriff and probation officer of current address and employment; possession and use of alcohol; arrest for public intoxication; and arrest for DWI. The court entered an order on August 8, 2012, granting the revocation and sentencing him to eighty-four months of incarceration in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and in compliance with Rule 4—3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Lewis's attorney brings a no-merit appeal and 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. Lewis has not exercised his right to file pro se points for reversal. The State has not filed a brief.
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, at the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the circuit court found that Lewis violated four written conditions of his probation. 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 granted.
PITTMAN and WALMSLEY, JJ., agree.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
No response.