Connors v. State

2014 Ark. App. 347
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedJune 4, 2014
DocketCR-13-635
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 Ark. App. 347 (Connors v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Connors v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 347 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 347

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-13-635

Opinion Delivered June 4, 2014 DEANDRE CONNORS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH DIVISION [NO. CR-11-3265] V. HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFEN, JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED; MOTION TO APPELLEE WITHDRAW GRANTED

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine)

with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use it to process or

pack a controlled substance. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive prison

terms totaling forty-one years in the Arkansas Department of Correction.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court

Rule 4-3(k),1 appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to be relieved, stating that there is no

merit to the appeal. The motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the

proceedings below, including all objections and motions decided adversely to appellant, and

a brief in which counsel explains why there is nothing in the record that would support an

appeal. The clerk of this court served appellant with a copy of his counsel’s brief and notified

1 We note for the benefit of appellant’s counsel that this rule was amended in 2008, resulting in former Rule 4-3(j) being redesignated as 4-3(k). Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 347

him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days. Appellant

has filed no such statement.

From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find compliance with

Rule 4-3(k) and that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw

is granted, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

HIXSON and WOOD, JJ., agree.

Danny R. Williams, for appellant.

No response.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 Ark. App. 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connors-v-state-arkctapp-2014.