Jonathan Kavon Richmond v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. App. 20

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: January 15, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 20 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-24-361

Opinion Delivered January 15, 2025 JONATHAN KAVON RICHMOND APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT APPELLANT SMITH DISTRICT [NO. 66FCR-18-809] V. HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant, Jonathan Kavon Richmond appeals from the Sebastian County Circuit

Court’s May 24, 2024, order revoking his suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) and

sentencing him to thirty-six months in the Arkansas Division of Correction. On behalf of

Richmond and in accordance with Anders1 and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b)(1), his

attorney has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel. The brief asserts

that there are no issues of arguable merit to support a finding that the court erred in revoking

Richmond’s suspended sentence. Richmond was sent a copy of the motion, the no-merit

brief, and a letter advising that he could file pro se points for reversal through certified mail,

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). but he has not filed any. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel and order

rebriefing.

When considering a no-merit appeal, after a full examination of the proceedings, this

court must determine whether there is any nonfrivolous reason for the appeal. 2 A no-merit

brief must provide a full examination of the proceedings as a whole to decide if an appeal

would be wholly frivolous.3 Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b) provides that a request to

withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit shall be accompanied by a

brief that contains 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 adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for

reversal. The circuit court can revoke an SIS if the court finds by a preponderance of the

evidence that the defendant inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of the suspension. 4

The violation of just one condition is enough to revoke.5 This court reverses only if the

circuit court clearly erred.6

2 Golden v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 371, at 4 (citing Norton v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 370, 553 S.W.3d 765).

3 Id. at 4.

4 Honeycutt v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 54, at 3, 683 S.W.3d 242, 244 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-308(d) (Supp. 2023)).

5 Id. at 4.

6 Todd v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 11, at 2.

2 Richmond’s attorney asserts that the only adverse ruling against the appellant is the

revocation of his SIS. However, following our review of the record, we identified two other

adverse rulings that were not discussed by counsel; therefore, we order rebriefing and deny

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

The first adverse ruling was on page 8 of the transcript when the appellant continued

to testify after counsel had passed the witness. The following conversation occurred between

the appellant and the court:

THE [DEFENDANT]: When I came back out here --

THE COURT: I don’t think there is a question in front of you right now.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir

The second adverse ruling is found on page 12 of the transcript. The appellant

requested leniency during sentencing, asking the court to consider his time served from his

thirty-day sentencing in a previous case. The court declined to consider it, stating that his

sentencing in that case would not affect its sentencing. Counsel failed to explain in his brief

why Richmond’s request for a lesser sentence provides no basis for a meritorious appeal.

Although, counsel addressed the legality of the sentence, he did not address the adverse ruling

that rejected the request for a lesser sentence.7

7 Gatewood v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 445, at 3 (citing Edwards v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 27; Hogue v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 20; Cook v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 18).

3 Accordingly, we order counsel to cure the deficiencies by filing a substituted brief that

complies with the rules within fifteen days from the date of this opinion. We express no

opinion as to whether the new brief should be made pursuant to Rule 4-3(b)(1) or should be

on meritorious grounds. However, we do encourage counsel to review Anders, supra, and

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b) for the requirements of a no-merit brief. If a no-merit

brief is filed, counsel’s motion and brief will be forwarded by our clerk to Richmond so that,

within thirty days, he again will have the opportunity to raise any points he so chooses in

accordance with Rule 4-3(b)(2). The State will likewise be given an opportunity to file a reply

brief if pro se points are made.

Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.

BARRETT and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for appellant.

One brief only.