Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 6 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-24-340
PAUL CRISWELL Opinion Delivered January 14, 2026
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 63CR-21-276]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BRENT DILLON APPELLEE HOUSTON, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE RELIEVED GRANTED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Paul Criswell appeals the Saline County Circuit Court’s order revoking his
probation.1 Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(b) of the
Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Criswell’s attorney has filed a
motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit
to raise on appeal. The clerk of this court delivered a copy of counsel’s brief and motion to
withdraw to Criswell, advising him of his right to file pro se points for reversal pursuant to
1 This case returns following our opinion ordering rebriefing. See Criswell v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 563. Ark. Sup. Ct. R 4-3(b)(2), and he has done so.2 We affirm the revocation of Criswell’s
probation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
In a no-merit brief, counsel is required to list each ruling adverse to the defendant
and explain why it does not present a meritorious ground for reversal. Eads v. State, 74 Ark.
App. 363, 365, 47 S.W.3d 918, 919 (2001). After a full examination of the proceedings, we
are required to determine whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Tennant v. State,
2014 Ark. App. 403, at 2, 439 S.W.3d 61, 63. Counsel identifies several rulings adverse to
Criswell in addition to the revocation decision. Counsel has now addressed each adverse
ruling, claiming there are no issues of arguable merit to support an appeal and that sufficient
evidence supports the circuit court’s decision to revoke Criswell’s probation. We agree.
On September 8, 2021, Criswell pleaded guilty to two counts of felony failure to
appear and was sentenced to thirty-six months of probation, ordered to pay fines and costs
totaling $341, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,000. On June 17, 2022,
the State filed a petition for probation revocation, citing three grounds for revocation: (1)
Criswell committed new felony offenses on April 30, 2022; (2) Criswell had not made any
payments on his restitution, fines, and court costs; and (3) Criswell had not completed his
anger-management course. The petition to revoke was amended on July 14, 2023, to include
an allegation that Criswell had failed to report to his probation officer following his release
from the Jefferson County Detention Center. After failed attempts by the probation office
2 Criswell has filed thirty points of appeal in his one-hundred-page pro se brief.
2 to contact Criswell by phone and two failed attempts at home visits, Criswell was placed on
“absconder” status.
On February 6, 2024, the Crawford County Circuit Court held a revocation hearing.
The revocation hearing was set for the morning, but Criswell did not appear, and the court
ordered a $100,000 failure-to-appear bond. Criswell, however, appeared later in the
afternoon, and the bond was withdrawn. Before the hearing, Criswell made a motion for the
circuit judge to recuse himself because Criswell had “filed a complaint with the judicial
discipline board.” The circuit court denied his motion. Next, Criswell moved to remove his
attorney because they were not seeing “eye-to-eye.” Criswell did not wish to proceed pro se.
The circuit court denied that motion as well.
Finally, at the hearing, Criswell’s probation officer testified that Criswell had not
reported since being released from Jefferson County Detention Center; that Criswell had
not made any payments on his fines, costs, or restitution; and that he had not completed his
anger-management course. The officer further noted that even before this, Criswell’s
compliance with reporting was spotty. And because Criswell had not been reporting to
probation, he had not been drug tested as his conditions required.
In revocation proceedings, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance
of the evidence that a defendant inexcusably violated the terms of his or her probation as
alleged in the revocation petition, and we will not reverse the circuit court’s decision to
revoke probation unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Stanley v.
State, 2023 Ark. App. 89, 661 S.W.3d 218. The State need only show that the appellant
3 committed one violation to sustain a revocation. Id. Here, counsel has addressed the
sufficiency of the evidence presented in support of the decision to revoke probation. The
decision to revoke does not present an issue of arguable merit for appeal.
First, the State must only prove a single violation to sustain the revocation. Id. In the
instant case, Criswell’s probation was revoked for the following reasons: (1) new criminal
charges, (2) failure to pay supervision fees, (3) failure to complete his anger-management
course, and (4) failure to report. The uncontroverted testimony at the hearing was that
Criswell had not reported to his probation officer since at least April 30, 2022, and remained
in absconder status on the day of the hearing. Failure to report alone is sufficient grounds
to support a revocation; accordingly, there is no merit to a sufficiency-of-the-evidence
argument.
Next, Criswell moved—on the day of the hearing—to have the circuit judge recuse
himself because Criswell had filed a claim against him with the judicial-discipline board. If
there is no valid reason for the judge to disqualify himself or herself, he or she has a duty to
remain in a case. U.S. Term Limits v. Hill, 315 Ark. 685, 870 S.W.2d 383 (1994). There is a
presumption of impartiality, and the party seeking disqualification bears the burden of
proving otherwise. Sturgis v. Skokos, 335 Ark. 41, 977 S.W.2d 217 (1998); Worth v. Benton
Cnty. Cir. Ct., 351 Ark. 149, 156, 89 S.W.3d 891, 896 (2002). Criswell has not presented
evidence that the circuit court acted with bias during the proceedings. See McKinney v. State,
2019 Ark. App. 347, 6–7, 583 S.W.3d 399, 403 (2019) (“Because McKinney has failed to
present any evidence that the circuit court demonstrated bias or prejudice against him, he
4 has failed to rebut the presumption that the trial judge was impartial.”). Accordingly, we
agree with counsel that this is not a meritorious ground for relief.
Third, on the day of the hearing, Criswell asked to fire his public defender and receive
the services of another public defender because he and his attorney did not see “eye to eye.”
Two public defenders had already been relieved from his case, and as counsel notes, Criswell
failed to either ask for a specific replacement attorney or articulate that he was able to afford
private counsel. Counsel addressed this issue and properly found that the denial of Criswell’s
motion for new counsel made on the day of the hearing did not present an issue of arguable
merit for appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 6 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-24-340
PAUL CRISWELL Opinion Delivered January 14, 2026
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 63CR-21-276]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BRENT DILLON APPELLEE HOUSTON, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE RELIEVED GRANTED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Paul Criswell appeals the Saline County Circuit Court’s order revoking his
probation.1 Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(b) of the
Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Criswell’s attorney has filed a
motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit
to raise on appeal. The clerk of this court delivered a copy of counsel’s brief and motion to
withdraw to Criswell, advising him of his right to file pro se points for reversal pursuant to
1 This case returns following our opinion ordering rebriefing. See Criswell v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 563. Ark. Sup. Ct. R 4-3(b)(2), and he has done so.2 We affirm the revocation of Criswell’s
probation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
In a no-merit brief, counsel is required to list each ruling adverse to the defendant
and explain why it does not present a meritorious ground for reversal. Eads v. State, 74 Ark.
App. 363, 365, 47 S.W.3d 918, 919 (2001). After a full examination of the proceedings, we
are required to determine whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Tennant v. State,
2014 Ark. App. 403, at 2, 439 S.W.3d 61, 63. Counsel identifies several rulings adverse to
Criswell in addition to the revocation decision. Counsel has now addressed each adverse
ruling, claiming there are no issues of arguable merit to support an appeal and that sufficient
evidence supports the circuit court’s decision to revoke Criswell’s probation. We agree.
On September 8, 2021, Criswell pleaded guilty to two counts of felony failure to
appear and was sentenced to thirty-six months of probation, ordered to pay fines and costs
totaling $341, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,000. On June 17, 2022,
the State filed a petition for probation revocation, citing three grounds for revocation: (1)
Criswell committed new felony offenses on April 30, 2022; (2) Criswell had not made any
payments on his restitution, fines, and court costs; and (3) Criswell had not completed his
anger-management course. The petition to revoke was amended on July 14, 2023, to include
an allegation that Criswell had failed to report to his probation officer following his release
from the Jefferson County Detention Center. After failed attempts by the probation office
2 Criswell has filed thirty points of appeal in his one-hundred-page pro se brief.
2 to contact Criswell by phone and two failed attempts at home visits, Criswell was placed on
“absconder” status.
On February 6, 2024, the Crawford County Circuit Court held a revocation hearing.
The revocation hearing was set for the morning, but Criswell did not appear, and the court
ordered a $100,000 failure-to-appear bond. Criswell, however, appeared later in the
afternoon, and the bond was withdrawn. Before the hearing, Criswell made a motion for the
circuit judge to recuse himself because Criswell had “filed a complaint with the judicial
discipline board.” The circuit court denied his motion. Next, Criswell moved to remove his
attorney because they were not seeing “eye-to-eye.” Criswell did not wish to proceed pro se.
The circuit court denied that motion as well.
Finally, at the hearing, Criswell’s probation officer testified that Criswell had not
reported since being released from Jefferson County Detention Center; that Criswell had
not made any payments on his fines, costs, or restitution; and that he had not completed his
anger-management course. The officer further noted that even before this, Criswell’s
compliance with reporting was spotty. And because Criswell had not been reporting to
probation, he had not been drug tested as his conditions required.
In revocation proceedings, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance
of the evidence that a defendant inexcusably violated the terms of his or her probation as
alleged in the revocation petition, and we will not reverse the circuit court’s decision to
revoke probation unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Stanley v.
State, 2023 Ark. App. 89, 661 S.W.3d 218. The State need only show that the appellant
3 committed one violation to sustain a revocation. Id. Here, counsel has addressed the
sufficiency of the evidence presented in support of the decision to revoke probation. The
decision to revoke does not present an issue of arguable merit for appeal.
First, the State must only prove a single violation to sustain the revocation. Id. In the
instant case, Criswell’s probation was revoked for the following reasons: (1) new criminal
charges, (2) failure to pay supervision fees, (3) failure to complete his anger-management
course, and (4) failure to report. The uncontroverted testimony at the hearing was that
Criswell had not reported to his probation officer since at least April 30, 2022, and remained
in absconder status on the day of the hearing. Failure to report alone is sufficient grounds
to support a revocation; accordingly, there is no merit to a sufficiency-of-the-evidence
argument.
Next, Criswell moved—on the day of the hearing—to have the circuit judge recuse
himself because Criswell had filed a claim against him with the judicial-discipline board. If
there is no valid reason for the judge to disqualify himself or herself, he or she has a duty to
remain in a case. U.S. Term Limits v. Hill, 315 Ark. 685, 870 S.W.2d 383 (1994). There is a
presumption of impartiality, and the party seeking disqualification bears the burden of
proving otherwise. Sturgis v. Skokos, 335 Ark. 41, 977 S.W.2d 217 (1998); Worth v. Benton
Cnty. Cir. Ct., 351 Ark. 149, 156, 89 S.W.3d 891, 896 (2002). Criswell has not presented
evidence that the circuit court acted with bias during the proceedings. See McKinney v. State,
2019 Ark. App. 347, 6–7, 583 S.W.3d 399, 403 (2019) (“Because McKinney has failed to
present any evidence that the circuit court demonstrated bias or prejudice against him, he
4 has failed to rebut the presumption that the trial judge was impartial.”). Accordingly, we
agree with counsel that this is not a meritorious ground for relief.
Third, on the day of the hearing, Criswell asked to fire his public defender and receive
the services of another public defender because he and his attorney did not see “eye to eye.”
Two public defenders had already been relieved from his case, and as counsel notes, Criswell
failed to either ask for a specific replacement attorney or articulate that he was able to afford
private counsel. Counsel addressed this issue and properly found that the denial of Criswell’s
motion for new counsel made on the day of the hearing did not present an issue of arguable
merit for appeal.
Counsel addresses the remaining arguments made in Criswell’s pro se points of
appeal, finding that they are either not preserved for appeal, waived, or underdeveloped. We
will not review a matter on which the circuit court has not ruled, and the burden of obtaining
a ruling is on the movant; matters left unresolved are waived and may not be raised on appeal.
Stell v. Stell, 2021 Ark. App. 478, at 2, 638 S.W.3d 855, 857. Furthermore, we have
continuously held that it is “not the duty of this court to research or develop arguments for
an appellant on appeal.” Smith v. Heather Manor Care Ctr., Inc., 2012 Ark. App. 584, at 7,
424 S.W.3d 368, 375. Failure to develop an argument precludes review of the issue on
appeal. Id., 424 S.W.3d at 375. Finally, it is well settled that this court will not consider
ineffective assistance as a point on direct appeal unless that issue has been considered by the
circuit court. Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384, 108 S.W.3d 592 (2003); Willis v. State, 334 Ark.
412, 977 S.W.2d 890 (1998). Accordingly, we will not review these issues now.
5 From our review of the record, the brief presented to us, and Criswell’s pro se points
of appeal, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(b) and that there is no merit to an appeal. We
therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the convictions.
Affirmed; motion to be relieved granted.
HARRISON and TUCKER, JJ., agree.
Nobles Law Firm, PLLC, by: Ethan C. Nobles, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.