Cummins v. State

2013 Ark. App. 657
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 6, 2013
DocketCR-13-157
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 2013 Ark. App. 657 (Cummins 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
Cummins v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 657 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 657

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-13-157

Opinion Delivered November 6, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI BOBBY CUMMINS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, APPELLANT FOURTH DIVISION [NO. CR-2011-1355] V. HONORABLE HERBERT WRIGHT, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE

APPELLEE DISMISSED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge

This is a no-merit appeal from a probation revocation. Bobby Cummins pleaded

guilty to various offenses in January 2012 and was sentenced to five years’ probation. In

September 2012, the prosecutor filed an amended petition to revoke Cummins’s

probation, alleging that he had committed new crimes, failed to complete community

service hours, failed to report to his probation officer, refused to submit to drug tests,

failed to complete GED classes, and failed to pay his fines. Cummins pleaded guilty to

these charges, and the circuit court revoked his probation and sentenced him to prison.

Cummins’s appellate counsel has filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(k)(2) (2013). Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 657

The brief and motion comply with the rules for these types of appeals. Cummins was

given an opportunity to file a pro se points, but has declined to do so.

We hold that the appeal is without merit because, generally, a defendant cannot

appeal from a guilty plea. Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 1(a) (2013). Exceptions to this rule

include (1) conditional-guilty pleas, (2) when the issue on appeal is one of evidentiary

errors that happened during the sentencing phase of the trial, or (3) the denial of a

postjudgment motion to amend an incorrect or illegal sentence. Johnson v. State, 2010 Ark.

63; Reeves v. State, 339 Ark. 304, 5 S.W.3d 41 (1999); Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b). None of

those exceptions apply here. Cummins’s appeal is therefore dismissed, and the motion to

withdraw is granted. See Wise v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 1.

Dismissed; motion to withdraw granted.

GLADWIN, C.J., and PITTMAN, J., agree.

William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender; Brandy Turner, Deputy Public Defender,

by: Margaret Egan, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

No response.

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

Related

Jeremy Tutt v. State of Arkansas
2021 Ark. App. 285 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2021)
Michael Dakota Hood v. State of Arkansas
2019 Ark. App. 328 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2019)
Smith v. State
546 S.W.3d 554 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2018)
McJoy v. State
2016 Ark. App. 337 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2016)
Barker v. State
2013 Ark. App. 735 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 Ark. App. 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummins-v-state-arkctapp-2013.