reNSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-13-1 091
Opinion Delivered JANUARY 2'1,, 201,5
RODRIGO CANTU APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-10-951]
HONORABLEJOHN N.
FOGLEIVIAN, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTET)
KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge
Appellant Rodrigo Cantu pleaded guilry to Ewo counts of Class B felony forgery on
August 27,2070, and he was placed on three years' probation. On September 10, 2072, the
State filed a petition to revoke Mr. Cantu's probation, alleging multiple violations including
failure to report to probation as directed. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order on
September 3,2073, revoking appellant's probation and sentencing him to five years in prison
followed by a ten-year suspended imposition ofsentence. Mr. Cantu now appeals from his
revocation, and we affirm.
Pursuant to Anders u. California,3S6 U.S. 738 (1,967), and Rule 4-3(kX1) ofthe Rules
of the Arkansas Supreme Court, appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on
the grounds that the appeal is wholly without merit. Mr. Cantu's counsel's motion was
accompanied by a brief discussing all matters in the record that might arguably support
an appeal, including any objections and motions made by appellant and denied by the trial
court, and a statement ofthe reason why each point raised cannot arguably support an appeal.
Mr. Cantu was provided a copy of his counsel's brief and notified of his right to file pro se
points for reversal, but he has not filed any points.
Mr. Cantu's conditions of probation required him to report to probation as directed.
Michael Alston, appellant's probation officer, testified that Mr. Cantu had reported to
probation only once during the past year. Mr. Alston acknowledged in his testimony that he
had failed to report to probation as directed, and he provided no excuse for missing his
scheduled visits. The trial couft revoked Mr. Cantu's probation based on his failure to report.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-308(d) (Supp. 2013) provides that, if a court
finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply
with a condition of probation, the court may revoke the probation at any rime prior to the
expiration of the probarion. A court may revoke probation subsequent to the expiration of
the period of probation if, before expiration of the period, the defendant is arrested for the
probation violation. Ark. Code Ann. $ 16-93-308(0(1).' On appeal, the trial court's decision
will not be reversed unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. May u.
State,
.
lAlthough Mr. Cantu's probation was revoked one week after the original
probation period would have expired, his counsel points out in his brief that Mr. Cantu
was arrested for the probation violation before the probation expired. Therefore, the trial
court had jurisdiction to revoke appellant's probation.
In the present appeal, the only advene ruling was the trial court's decision to revoke
appellant's probation, and appellant's counsel accurately asserts that there can be no
meritorious challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence suppofting revocation. The State
clearly demonstrated that Mr. Cantu had failed to report as directed to probation, and
Mr. Canru provided no reasonable excuse for his failure to report. Therefore, the trial court's
decision to revoke appellant's probation was not clearly against the preponderance of the
evidence.
Based on our review of the record and the briefpresented, we conclude that there has
been compliance with Rule 4-3(kX1) and that the appeal is without merit. Consequently,
appellant's counsel's motion to be relieved is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed; motion ganted.
Glno'vnN, CJ., and WHITEAKER, J., agree.
