Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2014 Ark. App. 709

Roe v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided December 17, 2014

Court of Appeals of Arkansas · decided 2014-12-17

Relies on Anders v. California · 16 Ark. App. 237 - Cuzick v. Lesly · In re Accelerated Civil Case List

Decided 2014-12-17

                                Cite as 
2014 Ark. App. 709


                ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION I
                                     No. CR-13-1119



                                                 Opinion Delivered   December 17, 2014

 ADAM DOUGLAS ROE                       APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
                              APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                                        [NO. CR-2011-641]
 V.
                                                 HONORABLE DAVID GOODSON,
 STATE OF ARKANSAS                               JUDGE
                                 APPELLEE
                                                 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
                                                 WITHDRAW GRANTED

                          BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

      Adam Roe appeals from the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence of

three years’ imprisonment. Roe’s attorney has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 
386 U.S. 738
 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) (2013), along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel, asserting that there is no issue of arguable merit for an

appeal. The clerk of our court mailed a certified copy of counsel’s motion and brief to

Roe in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(2), informing him of his right to file pro

se points for reversal. Roe has not filed pro se points for reversal, and the State has not

filed a brief. We grant the motion to withdraw and affirm.

       The test for filing a no-merit brief is not whether there is any reversible error, but

whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Tucker v. State, 
47 Ark. App. 96
, 
885 S.W.2d 904
 (1994). Based on our review of the record for potential error pursuant to

Anders and the requirements of Rule 4-3(k), we hold that Roe’s appeal is wholly without
                                             1
                              Cite as 
2014 Ark. App. 709


merit. Therefore, pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of In re Memorandum Opinions, 
16 Ark. App. 301
, 
700 S.W.2d 63
 (1985), we issue this memorandum opinion granting counsel’s

motion to withdraw and affirming the court’s revocation.

      Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

      VAUGHT and BROWN, JJ., agree.

      Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for appellant.

      No response.




                                           2

/2014/arkapp/709 · .json · Public domain