Roe v. State

2014 Ark. App. 709

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: December 17, 2014
• Docket: CR-13-1119
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 709

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-13-1119

Opinion Delivered December 17, 2014

ADAM DOUGLAS ROE APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2011-641] V. HONORABLE DAVID GOODSON, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

Adam Roe appeals from the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence of

three years’ imprisonment. Roe’s attorney has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) (2013), along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel, asserting that there is no issue of arguable merit for an

appeal. The clerk of our court mailed a certified copy of counsel’s motion and brief to

Roe in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(2), informing him of his right to file pro

se points for reversal. Roe has not filed pro se points for reversal, and the State has not

filed a brief. We grant the motion to withdraw and affirm.

The test for filing a no-merit brief is not whether there is any reversible error, but

whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Tucker v. State, 47 Ark. App. 96, 885

S.W.2d 904 (1994). Based on our review of the record for potential error pursuant to

Anders and the requirements of Rule 4-3(k), we hold that Roe’s appeal is wholly without 1 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 709

merit. Therefore, pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark.

App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985), we issue this memorandum opinion granting counsel’s

motion to withdraw and affirming the court’s revocation.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

VAUGHT and BROWN, JJ., agree.

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

No response.