Irving v. Williams v. State of Arkansas
This text of 2025 Ark. App. 15 (Irving v. Williams v. State of Arkansas) 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.
Opinion
Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 15 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-24-308
Opinion Delivered January 15, 2025 IRVING V. WILLIAMS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 26CR-22-505] V. HONORABLE RALPH C. OHM, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPELLEE GRANTED
WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge
Irving Williams appeals the Garland County Circuit Court’s sentencing order
revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment followed by five years’
suspended imposition of sentence (SIS). Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b)
and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Williams’s counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw stating that there is no merit to an appeal. The motion is accompanied by a brief
in which counsel explains why there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal.
The clerk of this court served Williams with a copy of counsel’s brief and notified him of his
right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days, but he has not done
so. We affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
On October 16, 2023, Williams pled guilty to residential burglary and on November
8 was sentenced to five years’ probation. The State filed a petition to revoke on December 13 alleging that Williams had committed three misdemeanor offenses in violation of the
condition that required him not to commit an offense punishable by imprisonment. The
offenses included criminal trespass and refusal to submit to arrest on October 28, violation
of a no-contact order and refusal to submit to arrest on November 9, and violation of a no-
contact order and violation of a protection order on December 5.
The circuit court held a revocation hearing on February 5, 2024. At the hearing,
Williams’s counsel conceded the grounds to revoke on the basis of the misdemeanor
convictions but stated that Williams wanted to testify in regard to sentencing.1 The State
introduced the misdemeanor convictions and the testimony of Kimberly Cannaday and
Audrey Green, both of whom have children with Williams. Cannaday is Williams’s ex-wife,
and Green is Williams’s ex-girlfriend. Both women had either no-contact orders or orders of
protection against Williams, and both testified that he had contact with them despite those
orders. Both women, as well as Williams, testified about Williams’s drug use, his mental-
health issues, and his attempts to receive treatment.
Rule 4-3(b)(1) provides that a no-merit brief shall 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
1 We note that the October 28 offense, which occurred prior to the entry of the November 8 sentencing order, could not alone serve as the basis for a revocation. See Hogue v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 443, 698 S.W.3d 415. However, Williams admitted violating the conditions of probation, and two of the offenses occurred after the November 8 sentencing order had been entered.
2 adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. The brief’s statement of the case and
the facts shall contain, in addition to the other material parts of the record, all rulings adverse
to the defendant made by the circuit court and the page number where each adverse ruling
is located in the appellate record. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(b)(1) (2024).
Williams’s counsel has briefed the court on the revocation and sentence. To revoke
a defendant’s probation, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that
the defendant has inexcusably violated a condition of his or her probation. McDougal v. State,
2015 Ark. App. 212, at 4, 465 S.W.3d 863, 865. The State bears the burden of proof but
need only prove one violation. Peals v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 1, at 4, 453 S.W.3d 151, 154.
At the revocation hearing, Williams admitted violating the conditions of his
probation. Specifically, Williams admitted that he had pleaded guilty or no-contest to three
misdemeanor charges and was sentenced to one year in jail, which was suspended with credit
for time served. In light of Williams’s admission, there would be no merit to an appeal of
the sufficiency of the evidence that supports the revocation.
As for the sentence, Williams sought drug and mental-health treatment to be followed
by probation. The court denied the request and sentenced Williams to ten years’
imprisonment followed by five years’ SIS for the Class B felony. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-
201(a)(2) (Supp. 2023). In a revocation proceeding, the circuit court has discretion in the
sentence imposed and is authorized to impose any sentence that it could have imposed
originally. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(g)(1)(A) (Supp. 2023). Here, Williams was sentenced
within the statutory guidelines. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(3) (Repl. 2013) (the sentence
3 for a Class B felony shall be not less than five years nor more than twenty years). Williams’s
sentence was within the statutory range. No meritorious argument could be made that the
circuit court abused its discretion in sentencing Williams.
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. Edwards v. State, 2024
Ark. App. 387, at 5–6, 690 S.W.3d 880, 884. In this case, counsel has complied with Rule
4-3(b), and we hold that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation
and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
ABRAMSON and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.
Law Offices of John Wesley Hall, by: Samantha J. Carpenter, for appellant.
One brief only.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 Ark. App. 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irving-v-williams-v-state-of-arkansas-arkctapp-2025.