Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 12 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-19-395
Opinion Delivered January 15, 2020
ANDREW CHILDERS APPEAL FROM THE JOHNSON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 36CR-18-278] V. HONORABLE WILLIAM M. STATE OF ARKANSAS PEARSON, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Andrew Childers was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance.
On appeal, Childers’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief, along with a motion to withdraw
as counsel, asserting that there is no issue of arguable merit for an appeal. Childers was
provided with a copy of counsel’s motion and brief and was informed of his right to submit
pro se points for reversal in accordance with Rule 4-3(k)(2) of the Arkansas Rules of the
Supreme Court, but no pro se points have been filed. We affirm and grant the motion to
withdraw.
In August 2018, Childers was charged with possession of a controlled substance and
possession of a firearm by certain persons.1 In January 2019, Childers moved to exclude the
1 The charge of possession of a firearm by certain persons was later nolle prossed. 1 recording of a phone call made to 911 by Childers prior to his arrest or, in the alternative,
for a continuance.
At a jury trial held on January 24, Stephanie Herring, a 911 coordinator, testified that
she had been asked to retrieve the recording of a 911 call made by Childers on 26 July 2018.
On that call, Childers reported that there “[s]eems to be a Mexican gang around my house
lighting dynamite and threatening me.”
Officer Jonia Smith testified that on 26 July 2018, he responded to a report of a
possible residential burglary in which the victim had shot at some subjects trying to break
into his house. When he arrived at the reported address, he saw “three suspected bullet
holes through the residence,” which he believed resulted from the shots fired at the alleged
intruders. A man, later identified as Childers, came to the door, and Smith observed that
he was “extremely sweaty and his pupils were darting back and forth. He could not keep
still.” Smith also said that Childers “seemed confused” and “couldn’t believe I didn’t see
them.” Smith believed that Childers was under the influence of a narcotic, specifically a
stimulant, and he was placed under arrest for communicating a false alarm. Smith testified
that he considered Childers a danger to his neighbors at that point because he had fired
shots, and he (Smith) thought Childers should be mentally evaluated.
After Childers was transported to the detention center, Smith saw the jailer conduct
a pat-down search of Childers. Smith said that as the jailer pulled the front of Childers’s
shirt to check for weapons, “a baggie fell down to the floor. And when that happened, Mr.
Childers said, ‘Well, that ain’t mine but it sure fell out of my crotch.’” The state crime lab
later determined that the baggie contained .7208 grams of methamphetamine.
2 After the State rested, Childers moved for a directed verdict, arguing that due to
Childers’s state of mind, he had not knowingly possessed the methamphetamine. The
motion was denied.
Childers testified that he is seventy-six years old and that he had made several 911
calls on July 26. He denied saying anything about the “Mexican Mafia” but did admit that
he had “hallucinated that day Muslins [sic] were invading Ozone.” He also admitted
shooting at these imagined invaders, causing the bullet holes. Childers said that he had been
sweaty because it was July and that his pupils had been dilated probably due to the
medication he had been taking. He testified that he had been taking prescription medication
for anxiety and depression and that he had started hallucinating, specifically seeing “people
in the trees around [his] house” after starting the medication. He also said he took
medications for arthritis, blood pressure, and cholesterol. He denied ever using illegal drugs
and said he had not used any methamphetamine on July 26. He acknowledged possibly
drinking alcohol that night. According to Childers, when the baggie fell on the floor during
intake, he said, “Whatever it is, that would be mine.” But he denied ever having
methamphetamine in his possession.
At the close of the defense’s case, Childers renewed his motion for directed verdict,
which was denied. The jury found Childers guilty of possession of a controlled substance,
and he was sentenced to thirty days’ incarceration and three years’ probation.
Childers’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) (2019), along with a motion to withdraw as
counsel, asserting that there is no issue of arguable merit for an appeal. A request to
3 withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit must be accompanied by
a brief that contains a list of all rulings adverse to appellant and an explanation as to why
each ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1). The brief
must 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. Id.
Counsel first addresses the motion to exclude the recorded phone call or,
alternatively, a motion for continuance. It appears from the record that the motion was
never ruled on, but according to counsel, “it was retracted by defense counsel prior to the
commencement of the trial, although not on the record.” Thus, it does not constitute a
ruling adverse to Childers.
Counsel next discusses two hearsay objections the State made during Childers’s cross-
examination of Officer Smith. Both objections stemmed from defense counsel’s questions
based on a prisoner-intake officer questionnaire. The court sustained both objections and
did not allow the document into evidence, but it did allow the document to be used to
refresh the officer’s memory. On appeal, counsel explains that the rulings are not
meritorious grounds for reversal because even if the document had been admitted, it would
not have provided additional evidence for the jury to consider. Officer Smith had already
testified about his observations of Childers’s behavior and admissions, and Childers later
testified about his medications and any admissions he had made.
The next adverse ruling was an objection to opinion testimony that was overruled
by the court. Defense counsel objected to Officer Smith’s testifying to his conclusions based
4 on his police training and Childers’s behavior. The court ruled that “if he starts making
medical diagnoses and all of that, then remind me and I’ll sustain but for now, I’ll overrule
your objection.” On appeal, counsel explains that this ruling is not a meritorious ground
for reversal because even if it was incorrect, it was harmless error. Officer Smith had already
testified to Childers’s behavior and to his conclusion (that Childers was under the influence
of a stimulant) based on his observation of that behavior. Counsel notes that “[w]hether or
not the Appellant was under the influence of methamphetamine during his intake would
not have had any bearing on the credibility of Officer Smith’s testimony regarding the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 12 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-19-395
Opinion Delivered January 15, 2020
ANDREW CHILDERS APPEAL FROM THE JOHNSON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 36CR-18-278] V. HONORABLE WILLIAM M. STATE OF ARKANSAS PEARSON, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Andrew Childers was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance.
On appeal, Childers’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief, along with a motion to withdraw
as counsel, asserting that there is no issue of arguable merit for an appeal. Childers was
provided with a copy of counsel’s motion and brief and was informed of his right to submit
pro se points for reversal in accordance with Rule 4-3(k)(2) of the Arkansas Rules of the
Supreme Court, but no pro se points have been filed. We affirm and grant the motion to
withdraw.
In August 2018, Childers was charged with possession of a controlled substance and
possession of a firearm by certain persons.1 In January 2019, Childers moved to exclude the
1 The charge of possession of a firearm by certain persons was later nolle prossed. 1 recording of a phone call made to 911 by Childers prior to his arrest or, in the alternative,
for a continuance.
At a jury trial held on January 24, Stephanie Herring, a 911 coordinator, testified that
she had been asked to retrieve the recording of a 911 call made by Childers on 26 July 2018.
On that call, Childers reported that there “[s]eems to be a Mexican gang around my house
lighting dynamite and threatening me.”
Officer Jonia Smith testified that on 26 July 2018, he responded to a report of a
possible residential burglary in which the victim had shot at some subjects trying to break
into his house. When he arrived at the reported address, he saw “three suspected bullet
holes through the residence,” which he believed resulted from the shots fired at the alleged
intruders. A man, later identified as Childers, came to the door, and Smith observed that
he was “extremely sweaty and his pupils were darting back and forth. He could not keep
still.” Smith also said that Childers “seemed confused” and “couldn’t believe I didn’t see
them.” Smith believed that Childers was under the influence of a narcotic, specifically a
stimulant, and he was placed under arrest for communicating a false alarm. Smith testified
that he considered Childers a danger to his neighbors at that point because he had fired
shots, and he (Smith) thought Childers should be mentally evaluated.
After Childers was transported to the detention center, Smith saw the jailer conduct
a pat-down search of Childers. Smith said that as the jailer pulled the front of Childers’s
shirt to check for weapons, “a baggie fell down to the floor. And when that happened, Mr.
Childers said, ‘Well, that ain’t mine but it sure fell out of my crotch.’” The state crime lab
later determined that the baggie contained .7208 grams of methamphetamine.
2 After the State rested, Childers moved for a directed verdict, arguing that due to
Childers’s state of mind, he had not knowingly possessed the methamphetamine. The
motion was denied.
Childers testified that he is seventy-six years old and that he had made several 911
calls on July 26. He denied saying anything about the “Mexican Mafia” but did admit that
he had “hallucinated that day Muslins [sic] were invading Ozone.” He also admitted
shooting at these imagined invaders, causing the bullet holes. Childers said that he had been
sweaty because it was July and that his pupils had been dilated probably due to the
medication he had been taking. He testified that he had been taking prescription medication
for anxiety and depression and that he had started hallucinating, specifically seeing “people
in the trees around [his] house” after starting the medication. He also said he took
medications for arthritis, blood pressure, and cholesterol. He denied ever using illegal drugs
and said he had not used any methamphetamine on July 26. He acknowledged possibly
drinking alcohol that night. According to Childers, when the baggie fell on the floor during
intake, he said, “Whatever it is, that would be mine.” But he denied ever having
methamphetamine in his possession.
At the close of the defense’s case, Childers renewed his motion for directed verdict,
which was denied. The jury found Childers guilty of possession of a controlled substance,
and he was sentenced to thirty days’ incarceration and three years’ probation.
Childers’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) (2019), along with a motion to withdraw as
counsel, asserting that there is no issue of arguable merit for an appeal. A request to
3 withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit must be accompanied by
a brief that contains a list of all rulings adverse to appellant and an explanation as to why
each ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1). The brief
must 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. Id.
Counsel first addresses the motion to exclude the recorded phone call or,
alternatively, a motion for continuance. It appears from the record that the motion was
never ruled on, but according to counsel, “it was retracted by defense counsel prior to the
commencement of the trial, although not on the record.” Thus, it does not constitute a
ruling adverse to Childers.
Counsel next discusses two hearsay objections the State made during Childers’s cross-
examination of Officer Smith. Both objections stemmed from defense counsel’s questions
based on a prisoner-intake officer questionnaire. The court sustained both objections and
did not allow the document into evidence, but it did allow the document to be used to
refresh the officer’s memory. On appeal, counsel explains that the rulings are not
meritorious grounds for reversal because even if the document had been admitted, it would
not have provided additional evidence for the jury to consider. Officer Smith had already
testified about his observations of Childers’s behavior and admissions, and Childers later
testified about his medications and any admissions he had made.
The next adverse ruling was an objection to opinion testimony that was overruled
by the court. Defense counsel objected to Officer Smith’s testifying to his conclusions based
4 on his police training and Childers’s behavior. The court ruled that “if he starts making
medical diagnoses and all of that, then remind me and I’ll sustain but for now, I’ll overrule
your objection.” On appeal, counsel explains that this ruling is not a meritorious ground
for reversal because even if it was incorrect, it was harmless error. Officer Smith had already
testified to Childers’s behavior and to his conclusion (that Childers was under the influence
of a stimulant) based on his observation of that behavior. Counsel notes that “[w]hether or
not the Appellant was under the influence of methamphetamine during his intake would
not have had any bearing on the credibility of Officer Smith’s testimony regarding the
circumstances of the intake and the manner in which the methamphetamine was found.”
Counsel next discusses Childers’s first motion for directed verdict, which argued that
Childers had not been aware that he had methamphetamine in his possession. Counsel
explains that the denial of the motion for directed verdict does not provide a meritorious
ground for reversal because there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
Officer Smith testified that he was present during the search of Childers’s person and that
he saw the baggie fall from Childers’s waistband area. He also testified that Childers
identified the baggie as falling “out of my crotch.” The State also presented evidence that
the substance in the baggie was less than two grams of methamphetamine. Counsel asserts
that control and knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances, Loggins v. State, 2010
Ark. 414, 372 S.W.3d 785, and that “[t]he jury could reasonably consider the credibility of
Officer Smith’s testimony regarding the methamphetamine being seen falling from the
Appellant’s person and could reasonably infer knowledge based on that evidence.”
5 Next, counsel explains that the circuit court sustained an objection made by the State
during defense counsel’s questioning of Childers. Defense counsel asked Childers where he
thought the methamphetamine might have come from, and the State objected on
speculation grounds. On appeal, counsel contends that “[n]o evidence had been introduced
sufficient to support a finding that the Appellant had personal knowledge of where the
evidence would have come from if not from his own person.” Thus, counsel asserts, the
circuit court’s ruling was correct and does not provide a meritorious ground for reversal.
Counsel also examines an objection based on leading that was sustained by the circuit
court during defense counsel’s redirect questioning of Childers. Defense counsel began his
question with “[i]f I told you that…,” and the State objected. On appeal, counsel explains
that the question was, in fact, a leading question, as it was phrased in a way that was intended
to lead the witness to the conclusion proffered in the question; therefore, it does not present
a meritorious ground for reversal.
Counsel next discusses the denial of Childers’s renewed motion for directed verdict,
which was again made on the basis that “the State has failed to prove that he knowingly
possessed anything.” Counsel says the only evidence offered during the defense’s case was
Childers’s testimony, and while some of his testimony conflicted with Officer Smith’s
testimony, it was up to the jury to resolve any conflicts and inconsistencies. Coleman v.
State, 314 Ark. 143, 860 S.W.2d 747 (1993). Thus, counsel contends the denial of the
motion does not present a meritorious ground for reversal.
Finally, counsel mentions a motion to stay the condition of his sentence that he
report for thirty days’ incarceration pending appeal or, alternatively, a motion for appeal
6 bond, which was denied by the circuit court. Counsel explains that this is not a meritorious
ground for reversal because it is moot, as Childers has already been released from
incarceration.
In deciding whether to allow counsel to withdraw from appellate representation, the
test is not whether counsel thinks the circuit court committed no reversible error, but
whether the points to be raised on appeal would be wholly frivolous. Williams v. State, 2013
Ark. App. 323. In this case, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k)(1) and Anders and hold
that there is no merit to this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
HIXSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.
Samuel F. Eastman, for appellant.
One brief only.