ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-16-69
TRIVA COBLE Opinion Delivered January 18, 2017
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 26CR-13-72-1]
HONORABLE JOHN HOMER
STATE OF ARKANSAS WRIGHT, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge
Triva Lynn Coble appeals a Garland County Circuit Court order revoking her
probation and sentencing her to eighteen years in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
Appellate counsel has filed a motion with this court to be relieved as counsel pursuant to
Anders v. California,
(1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2016).
The motion is accompanied by a no-merit brief containing an abstract and addendum of the
proceedings below. The abstract and addendum in counsel’s brief include all objections and
motions decided adversely to appellant, and counsel explains in the argument portion of his
brief why there is nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal. The clerk of
this court provided appellant with a copy of counsel’s brief and motion and notified appellant
of her right to file pro se points for reversal. Appellant has filed pro se points for reversal, and
Cite as
the State has filed a response. We affirm appellant’s revocation and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
A request to be relieved as counsel on the ground that the appeal is wholly without
merit shall be accompanied by a brief including an abstract and addendum. Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-3(k)(1). The brief shall contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings
adverse to the defendant made by the trial court with an explanation as to why each adverse
ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.
In furtherance of the goal of protecting
constitutional rights, it is both the duty of counsel and of this court to perform a full
examination of the proceedings as a whole to decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous.
Campbell v. State,
(2001).
From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, including consideration
of appellant’s pro se points for reversal, which are either not preserved for appeal or do not
otherwise support reversal, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and that there is no merit
to an appeal. Therefore, we affirm, by memorandum opinion, appellant’s revocation. See In
re Memorandum Opinions,
(1985). We also grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
GLOVER and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Paul J. Teufel, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rachel Kemp, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
2
