Dominic Parker v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 331

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: June 3, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 331 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Date: 2021-07-07 12:27:25 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION IV 9.7.5 No. CR-19-733

Opinion Delivered June 3, 2020 DOMINIC PARKER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE POPE COUNTY V. CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 58CR-16-895] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE WILLIAM PEARSON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

Dominic Parker appeals from a May 2019 sentencing order revoking his probation.

His attorney filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Rule

4-3(k) (2019) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arkansas and Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and asserts that there is no meritorious issue to argue on appeal. We affirm

the revocation of Parker’s probation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

In February 2017, the Pope County Circuit Court sentenced Parker to five years’

probation for violating the terms and conditions of his probation on the underlying offense

of breaking or entering to which he had pled guilty. Among other things, Parker was

ordered to perform twenty hours of community service; regularly report to his probation

officer; not commit any new criminal offenses; and pay supervision fees, fines, and restitution

as terms of his probation. Several issues arose during Parker’s probationary period that ultimately resulted in the State’s filing an amended petition to revoke on 15 May 2018. The

State alleged four grounds for the revocation: Parker failed to report to his probation officer,

he failed “to pay on financial obligations,” he committed the new crime of failing to appear

on or around 21 March 2018, and he committed the crime of fleeing on or around 6

September 2017. After a hearing held on 20 May 2019, the circuit court found that Parker

had violated the conditions of his probation by failing to report, among other things. Parker

was sentenced to twenty-four months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of

Correction with an additional thirty-six months’ suspended imposition of sentence

following his release. This appeal followed.

Rule 4-3(k)(1) requires that the argument section of a no-merit brief contain “a list

of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court on all objections . . . with

an explanation as to why each . . . is not a meritorious ground for reversal.” Ark. Sup. Ct.

R. 4-3(k)(1). Parker’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel simultaneously with

an abstract and addendum that includes all objections and motions adverse to Parker. And

counsel’s appellate brief explains why there is nothing in the record that would support a

meritorious appeal. The clerk of this court served Parker a copy of the brief and the motion

to withdraw and notified him of the right to file pro se points. Parker filed no pro se points.

Therefore, the State’s obligation to file a brief was not triggered.

Our review of the record and the accompanying brief shows compliance with

Rule4-3(k)(1), and we agree that there is no merit to this appeal. During the May 20

revocation hearing, the circuit court found the Parker had failed to report to his probation

officer. The record supports this finding. The State must only prove one violation of a

2 condition of probation to support a revocation, and it did so. Peals v. State, 2015 Ark. App.

1, at 4, 453 S.W.3d 151, 154.

Parker’s counsel has also addressed the other revocation grounds and adequately

explained why the circuit court’s revocation of Parker’s probation was not clearly erroneous

or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. We therefore affirm the 21 May

2019 sentencing order and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

GLADWIN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Michael S. Robbins, for appellant.

One brief only.