Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2017 Ark. App. 8

Young v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided January 18, 2017

Court of Appeals of Arkansas · decided 2017-01-18

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 2017

1 state decisions

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

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2017-01-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

                                  Cite as 
2017 Ark. App. 8


                 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION I
                                      No. CR-16-320
                                                Opinion Delivered   January 18, 2017

   JAVIAN YOUNG                          APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
                               APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                                         [NO. 35CR-12-592]
   V.
                                                HONORABLE BERLIN C. JONES,
   STATE OF ARKANSAS                            JUDGE
                                  APPELLEE

                                                AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
                                                WITHDRAW GRANTED

                           BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

        Javian Young appeals from the revocation of his probation and related sentence of

seven years’ imprisonment. Young’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) (2016), along with a

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

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

pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(2), informing him of his right to file pro se points for

reversal. Young has not filed any points, 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 Young’s appeal is wholly without merit. So
                                           1
                                    Cite as 
2017 Ark. App. 8

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.

       GLADWIN and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.

       Potts Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, for appellant.

       No response.




                                               2

/2017/arkapp/8 · .json · Public domain