McCoy v. State

Full title: CARTRELL LEWAN McCOY, APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division I

Date published: Aug 29, 2001

74 Ark. App. 414 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001)

74 Ark. App. 414

49 S.W.3d 154

Opinion

52 S.W.3d 510 (Ark.App. 2001) 74 Ark.App. 414 CARTRELL LEWAN MCCOY, APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE CACR00-905 Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division I and II August 29, 2001

         APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CR98-2669; CR99-3832. HON. JOHN B. PLEGGE, JUDGE.

          Revocation of appellant's probation affirmed.

         LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge. HART, BIRD, NEAL, BAKER, and ROAF, JJ., agree.

          SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON GRANT OF REHEARING

         LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge.

         Appellant petitions this court for rehearing of our decision of July 5, 2001, remanding the appeal of his probation revocation for supplementation of the record. Appellant argues that remand for supplementation of the record pursuant to Campbell v. State, 74 Ark.App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001),was unnecessary. We agree.

          After reviewing appellant's petition, we find that Campbell does not apply to this case. Here, unlike Campbell, there are two cases consolidated for appeal. One case is a jury trial on charges of attempted first-degree murder and residential burglary, and the other is a petition for revocation of probation, which was based on the attempted first-degree murder and residential burglary charges. The parties stipulated that the evidence introduced at the jury trial would also serve as the evidence in support of the revocation. In our July 5, 2001, opinion, we remanded the revocation case for supplementation of the record, based on Campbell, because the record failed to include all of the proceedings, including opening statements, closing arguments, and jury voir dire. Campbell did not involve a revocation, but rather a jury trial on a rape charge that resulted in a conviction. The instant revocation proceeding was a bench trial, which was held simultaneously with the jury trial on the charges of attempted first-degree murder and residential burglary. The opening statements, closing arguments, and jury voir dire related only to the jury trial. Because the portions of the proceedings omitted from the record were not relevant to the revocation of probation, they are unnecessary for our review of the no-merit brief filed with respect to the revocation.

         The facts pertaining to the revocation and the law with respect to a no-merit brief were addressed in our original opinion, and thus do not need to be restated. From our review of the record and the briefs presented, we conclude that there has been full compliance with Rule 4-3(j) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals and that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of appellant's probation.

         HART, BIRD, NEAL, BAKER, and ROAF, JJ., agree.