Heigelmann v. State

2014 Ark. App. 358

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: June 4, 2014
• Docket: CR-13-1034
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 358

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-13-1034

ERIK HEIGELMANN Opinion Delivered June 4, 2014 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 46CR-07-352]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE KIRK JOHNSON, APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

On July 31, 2007, Erik Heigelmann pled guilty to the underlying offense of theft of

property and was placed on probation for a period of three years. He was also ordered to pay

fines, costs, and restitution totaling $2,357 at the rate of $150 a month. By order entered

September 22, 2008, the term of his probation was extended for twenty-four months and

additional costs were assessed (based upon him pleading true to a December 6, 2007 petition

to revoke for failure to follow the terms and conditions of his probation).

On September 1, 2009, a second petition to revoke was filed by the State, alleging that

Heigelmann had failed to report to his probation officer, failed to pay the supervision fees, and

failed to pay the court-ordered financial obligations. On August 15, 2013, following a

hearing, the trial court granted the State’s petition to revoke Heigelmann’s probation, and this

appeal followed. Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 358

Heigelmann’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw as counsel

pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k)(1) (2013), and Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Heigelmann was given an opportunity to file pro se points but has not done so.

In filing a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 4-3(k) and Anders, counsel must address all adverse

rulings and explain why none of them provides a meritorious ground for reversal.

Counsel has noted the following adverse rulings: the denial of Heigelmann’s motion

for continuance on the day of the revocation hearing; the overruling of Heigelmann’s

objection to testimony concerning his incarceration; the overruling of Heigelmann’s objection

to a rebuttal witness concerning the investigation that led to his arrest for aggravated robbery;

the denial of Heigelmann’s motion to dismiss; and the granting of the State’s petition to

revoke his probation. In addressing these adverse rulings, counsel has adequately explained

why none of them provides a meritorious ground for reversal.

Our review of the record and brief confirms that counsel has complied with Rule 4-

3(k) and that an appeal in this case would be wholly without merit. We therefore affirm the

revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

GRUBER and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.

Phillip A. McGough, P.A., by: Phillip A. McGough, for appellant.

No response.