McDonald v. State
This text of 2014 Ark. App. 43 (McDonald v. State) 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 2014 Ark. App. 43
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-13-446
Opinion Delivered January 15, 2014
LEONARD LEE MCDONALD APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANT [CR-2009-1306]
V. HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR., JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge
Leonard McDonald pleaded guilty in August 2010 to battery. His probation
conditions required him to pay $870 in fines and not violate any state laws. Police arrested
him for shoplifting in January 2013, and the State filed a revocation petition alleging that
McDonald had violated these conditions.
At the revocation hearing, McDonald’s probation officer testified that McDonald
had not paid his fine and that he had never contacted the probation office. Next, the store
clerk testified that McDonald tried to steal items from the gas station. The court found by
a preponderance of the evidence that McDonald had violated his probation conditions and
sentenced him to thirty-six months in prison. Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 43
McDonald’s appellate counsel has filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw as
counsel. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) (2013); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
McDonald was given an opportunity to file pro se points but has declined. The rule
requires counsel to address all the adverse rulings and explain why none provides a
meritorious ground for reversal. Here, there were only two adverse rulings: a
confrontation objection and the decision to revoke. Counsel has adequately explained
why neither adverse ruling is a meritorious ground for reversal on appeal. Our review of
the record and brief confirms that counsel has complied with Rule 4-3(k) and that an
appeal would be meritless. We affirm the revocation and grant the motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
HARRISON and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2014 Ark. App. 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-state-arkctapp-2014.