Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 516 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-25-155
JEREMY EDWARD LEE Opinion Delivered October 29, 2025
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE DREW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 22CR-20-10]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE ROBERT B. GIBSON III, APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge
Appellant Jeremy Edward Lee appeals after the Drew County Circuit Court revoked
his suspended imposition of sentence on a charge of possession of drug paraphernalia and
imposed a four-year sentence of imprisonment in the Arkansas Division of Correction.1 Lee’s
counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b) (2024) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that this appeal is wholly without merit. The no-merit brief contains an argument section
1 The bench trial on the revocation petition in this case was held simultaneously with the bench trial on the revocation petition in 22CR-20-141 and the jury trial on a new charge in 22CR-24-95. The court ordered Lee’s sentence in this case to run consecutively with the sentences imposed in those cases. Opinions concerning the appeals in the companion cases are also being handed down today in CR-25-156, Lee v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 513; and CR- 25-154, Lee v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 515. 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
adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. The clerk of this court mailed a copy
of counsel’s motion and brief to Lee’s last-known address informing him of his right to file
pro se points for reversal, but he has not done so. After reviewing the record and considering
the arguments of counsel in the brief, we affirm and grant the motion to withdraw.
On January 14, 2020, Lee was charged as a habitual offender with one count of
possession of drug paraphernalia (Class D felony) and one count of possession of marijuana
(Class A misdemeanor). He pled guilty to those charges on May 12, 2021. In exchange for
his plea, the State agreed to an eight-year sentence followed by four years’ suspended
imposition of sentence on the paraphernalia charge and a six-month county jail sentence on
the marijuana charge. The court accepted his plea and the State’s recommendation. One of
the conditions of his suspended sentence was that Lee not commit any felony, misdemeanor,
or other criminal offense punishable by confinement in jail or prison.
In June 2024, Lee was arrested for possession of methamphetamine with intent to
deliver. As a result, the State filed a petition to revoke Lee’s suspended sentence, alleging he
had violated the terms of his suspended sentence by committing a new criminal act.
The revocation hearing was continued multiple times and was ultimately tried
simultaneously with the jury trial on his new charge in 22CR-24-95 and the bench trial on
the revocation in 22CR-20-141.
2 At trial, Commander James Slaughter of the Tenth Judicial Drug Task Force testified
he initiated a traffic stop after he saw a white SUV make a turn without using a turn signal.
Lee was the driver and sole occupant of the SUV. Upon stopping Lee, Commander
Slaughter asked for his driver’s license and proof of insurance. Lee was cooperative and
explained that his license had been suspended. While he spoke with Lee, Commander
Slaughter noticed Lee had something white in his right hand. When Lee reached toward the
glove box for his proof of insurance, Commander Slaughter saw him drop whatever was in
his hand onto the floor of the vehicle by the passenger’s seat.
Commander Slaughter called for assistance. When backup arrived, Commander
Slaughter had Lee exit the vehicle while they conducted a search. After being advised of his
Miranda rights, Lee told officers that the item he had placed on the floor was
methamphetamine. A search of the car revealed four small individual bags of suspected
methamphetamine. The State admitted bodycam footage of the search into evidence as well
as the crime-lab report positively identifying the bagged substance as methamphetamine.
Lee did not testify at trial. His defense to the underlying criminal charge was that,
while he had possessed the methamphetamine, he had not possessed it with the purpose to
deliver. As to the revocation, defense counsel stated, “We’re not denying that he was in
possession, Your Honor, and I think on that basis there’s probably sufficient evidence for
the Court to revoke,” after which the court found he had violated the terms and conditions
of his suspended sentence. The jury then convicted Lee of possession with intent to deliver.
This appeal is from the revocation of his suspended sentence.
3 On appeal, Lee’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw, asserting
that there are no nonfrivolous issues that would support an appeal in this case. In the brief,
Counsel has addressed the sufficiency of the evidence on the revocation and the
appropriateness of Lee’s sentence. She has also addressed the court’s denial of Lee’s request
for a bond reduction, the denial of his Batson challenge, allegedly improper closing argument,
several potential evidentiary errors, and the court’s failure to instruct the jury on alternative
sentencing. Each of these will be discussed in turn.
I. Sufficiency
The first adverse ruling addressed by counsel is the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the revocation. To revoke probation or a suspended imposition of sentence, the
circuit court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has
inexcusably violated a condition of the probation or suspension. Springs v. State, 2017 Ark.
App. 364, 525 S.W.3d 490. The State’s burden of proof in a revocation proceeding is lower
than that required to convict in a criminal trial, and evidence that is insufficient for a
conviction thus may be sufficient for a revocation. Id. Furthermore, the State does not have
to prove every allegation in its petition, and proof of only one violation is sufficient to sustain
a revocation. Mathis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 49, 616 S.W.3d 274.
Here, the only basis for the revocation was the commission of a new criminal offense
punishable by confinement in jail or prison. Lee admitted, to both the officers at the scene
and through counsel at trial, that he possessed methamphetamine—a criminal offense
punishable by imprisonment. Thus, the State met its burden of proving that Lee violated a
4 condition of his suspended sentence. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support the
court’s revocation.
II. Sentencing
The next adverse ruling addressed by counsel was whether the sentence imposed by
the circuit court was appropriate. When a circuit court revokes a defendant’s suspended
imposition of sentence, it may impose any sentence that might have been imposed originally
for the offense, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(g)(1)(A) (Supp. 2023), and the sentencing court
has the discretion to impose consecutive sentences for separate offenses, Id. § 5-4-403(a)
(Supp. 2023). Here, Lee was originally sentenced as a habitual offender to eight years’
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 516 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-25-155
JEREMY EDWARD LEE Opinion Delivered October 29, 2025
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE DREW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 22CR-20-10]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE ROBERT B. GIBSON III, APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge
Appellant Jeremy Edward Lee appeals after the Drew County Circuit Court revoked
his suspended imposition of sentence on a charge of possession of drug paraphernalia and
imposed a four-year sentence of imprisonment in the Arkansas Division of Correction.1 Lee’s
counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b) (2024) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that this appeal is wholly without merit. The no-merit brief contains an argument section
1 The bench trial on the revocation petition in this case was held simultaneously with the bench trial on the revocation petition in 22CR-20-141 and the jury trial on a new charge in 22CR-24-95. The court ordered Lee’s sentence in this case to run consecutively with the sentences imposed in those cases. Opinions concerning the appeals in the companion cases are also being handed down today in CR-25-156, Lee v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 513; and CR- 25-154, Lee v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 515. 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
adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. The clerk of this court mailed a copy
of counsel’s motion and brief to Lee’s last-known address informing him of his right to file
pro se points for reversal, but he has not done so. After reviewing the record and considering
the arguments of counsel in the brief, we affirm and grant the motion to withdraw.
On January 14, 2020, Lee was charged as a habitual offender with one count of
possession of drug paraphernalia (Class D felony) and one count of possession of marijuana
(Class A misdemeanor). He pled guilty to those charges on May 12, 2021. In exchange for
his plea, the State agreed to an eight-year sentence followed by four years’ suspended
imposition of sentence on the paraphernalia charge and a six-month county jail sentence on
the marijuana charge. The court accepted his plea and the State’s recommendation. One of
the conditions of his suspended sentence was that Lee not commit any felony, misdemeanor,
or other criminal offense punishable by confinement in jail or prison.
In June 2024, Lee was arrested for possession of methamphetamine with intent to
deliver. As a result, the State filed a petition to revoke Lee’s suspended sentence, alleging he
had violated the terms of his suspended sentence by committing a new criminal act.
The revocation hearing was continued multiple times and was ultimately tried
simultaneously with the jury trial on his new charge in 22CR-24-95 and the bench trial on
the revocation in 22CR-20-141.
2 At trial, Commander James Slaughter of the Tenth Judicial Drug Task Force testified
he initiated a traffic stop after he saw a white SUV make a turn without using a turn signal.
Lee was the driver and sole occupant of the SUV. Upon stopping Lee, Commander
Slaughter asked for his driver’s license and proof of insurance. Lee was cooperative and
explained that his license had been suspended. While he spoke with Lee, Commander
Slaughter noticed Lee had something white in his right hand. When Lee reached toward the
glove box for his proof of insurance, Commander Slaughter saw him drop whatever was in
his hand onto the floor of the vehicle by the passenger’s seat.
Commander Slaughter called for assistance. When backup arrived, Commander
Slaughter had Lee exit the vehicle while they conducted a search. After being advised of his
Miranda rights, Lee told officers that the item he had placed on the floor was
methamphetamine. A search of the car revealed four small individual bags of suspected
methamphetamine. The State admitted bodycam footage of the search into evidence as well
as the crime-lab report positively identifying the bagged substance as methamphetamine.
Lee did not testify at trial. His defense to the underlying criminal charge was that,
while he had possessed the methamphetamine, he had not possessed it with the purpose to
deliver. As to the revocation, defense counsel stated, “We’re not denying that he was in
possession, Your Honor, and I think on that basis there’s probably sufficient evidence for
the Court to revoke,” after which the court found he had violated the terms and conditions
of his suspended sentence. The jury then convicted Lee of possession with intent to deliver.
This appeal is from the revocation of his suspended sentence.
3 On appeal, Lee’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw, asserting
that there are no nonfrivolous issues that would support an appeal in this case. In the brief,
Counsel has addressed the sufficiency of the evidence on the revocation and the
appropriateness of Lee’s sentence. She has also addressed the court’s denial of Lee’s request
for a bond reduction, the denial of his Batson challenge, allegedly improper closing argument,
several potential evidentiary errors, and the court’s failure to instruct the jury on alternative
sentencing. Each of these will be discussed in turn.
I. Sufficiency
The first adverse ruling addressed by counsel is the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the revocation. To revoke probation or a suspended imposition of sentence, the
circuit court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has
inexcusably violated a condition of the probation or suspension. Springs v. State, 2017 Ark.
App. 364, 525 S.W.3d 490. The State’s burden of proof in a revocation proceeding is lower
than that required to convict in a criminal trial, and evidence that is insufficient for a
conviction thus may be sufficient for a revocation. Id. Furthermore, the State does not have
to prove every allegation in its petition, and proof of only one violation is sufficient to sustain
a revocation. Mathis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 49, 616 S.W.3d 274.
Here, the only basis for the revocation was the commission of a new criminal offense
punishable by confinement in jail or prison. Lee admitted, to both the officers at the scene
and through counsel at trial, that he possessed methamphetamine—a criminal offense
punishable by imprisonment. Thus, the State met its burden of proving that Lee violated a
4 condition of his suspended sentence. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support the
court’s revocation.
II. Sentencing
The next adverse ruling addressed by counsel was whether the sentence imposed by
the circuit court was appropriate. When a circuit court revokes a defendant’s suspended
imposition of sentence, it may impose any sentence that might have been imposed originally
for the offense, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(g)(1)(A) (Supp. 2023), and the sentencing court
has the discretion to impose consecutive sentences for separate offenses, Id. § 5-4-403(a)
(Supp. 2023). Here, Lee was originally sentenced as a habitual offender to eight years’
imprisonment and four years’ suspended imposition of sentence for a Class D felony, which
has a maximum sentence of twelve years. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(a)(2)(E) (Supp. 2023).
Upon revocation, the court sentenced Lee to four years in the Arkansas Division of
Correction. Given his initial eight-year sentence, this was the maximum allowed by law.
Because the sentence imposed by the circuit court was within the statutory range prescribed
by law, there can be no meritorious challenge to the sentence on appeal. See Brookshire v.
State, 2021 Ark. App. 315, 633 S.W.3d 782.
Nor does the court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing create reversible error. The
decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences is discretionary. See Golden v. State,
2024 Ark. App. 371. Moreover, a contemporaneous objection to the circuit court’s
imposition of consecutive sentences is necessary in order to preserve for appeal an argument
that the circuit court abused its discretion. Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53, 76 S.W.3d 825
5 (2002). Counsel raised no specific objection to the circuit court’s decision to order that his
sentence on revocation run consecutively to his other sentences; thus, any argument that the
circuit court abused its discretion would not be preserved.
III. Other Adverse Rulings
Counsel next addresses the other adverse rulings in the record, including the court’s
denial of Lee’s request for a bond reduction, the denial of his Batson challenge, allegedly
improper closing argument, several potential evidentiary errors, and the court’s failure to
instruct the jury on alternative sentencing.
With regard to the court’s denial of his request for a bond reduction, the issue became
moot upon revocation. Once an appellant has been found guilty and is incarcerated, the
issue of pretrial bond becomes moot. See Shipley v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 257 (citing Cummings
v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 573, 534 S.W.3d 155). The proper means to challenge a bond
decision is by a writ of certiorari, and a party who does not seek a timely writ of certiorari
from a bond decision abandons the issue. Id. Because Lee did not seek a writ of certiorari,
the pretrial bond issue was abandoned, and the issue is moot. For this reason, this adverse
ruling provides no meritorious ground for reversal.
As for the other adverse rulings—the denial of his Batson challenge, the allegedly
improper closing argument, potential evidentiary errors, and the court’s failure to instruct
the jury on alternative sentencing—they relate to the jury trial on the possession-of-
methamphetamine-with-intent-to-deliver charge that, for purposes of judicial economy, was
heard simultaneously with the revocation petition. As counsel notes, because the court’s
6 decisions on those issues related solely to the underlying possession-with-intent-to-deliver
case, they are immaterial to the court’s decision in the revocation case that is the subject of
this appeal. Thus, any error with respect to those rulings is likewise immaterial to the appeal
of the revocation. Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
BARRETT and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Vicki Lucas, for appellant.
One brief only.