ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No.CR-13-845
Opinion Delivered June 18, 2014
IAN PATTERSON APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-11-567]
V.
HONORABLE JOHN N.
STATE OF ARKANSAS FOGLEMAN, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
BILL H. WALMSLEY, Judge
Appellant Ian Patterson appeals from the revocation of his probation. Appellant’s
counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw alleging that there are no
nonfrivolous arguments that would support an appeal. We affirm the revocation and grant
the motion to withdraw.
On February 17, 2012, appellant pled guilty to residential burglary and was sentenced
to five years’ probation. He was also ordered to pay court costs, fines, and fees. On April 24,
2013, the State filed an amended petition for revocation, alleging that appellant had violated
the conditions of his probation by (1) failing to pay costs, fines, and fees as directed; (2) failing
to report to probation as directed; (3) failing to pay probation fees; (4) failing to notify the
sheriff and probation of current address and employment; (5) committing the offense of
harassing communications; (6) committing possession of marijuana; (7) departing from his
Cite as
approved residence without permission; and (8) committing residential burglary and theft of
property. Following a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation upon
finding that he had failed to report to probation as directed and had committed residential
burglary and theft of property. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, and this appeal
followed.
Pursuant to Anders v. California,
(1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court
Rule 4-3(k)(1) (2013), appellant’s counsel submitted a no-merit brief asserting that there are
no meritorious grounds to support an appeal. Appellant was given an opportunity to file pro
se points but has not done so. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k)(1) provides that
counsel’s brief “shall contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings adverse
to the defendant made by the circuit court on all objections, motions and requests made by
either party with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for
reversal.” Counsel has adequately explained why none of the adverse rulings provides a
meritorious ground for reversal.
From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find that counsel has
complied with Rule 4-3(k) and that the appeal is wholly without merit. We thus affirm the
revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
GLOVER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
No response.
2
