Randy McBride v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
DIVISION IV
CACR03-1320
RANDY McBRIDE
January 17, 2007
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-99-41-2, CR-99-903-2]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HON. H. A. TAYLOR, JR.
CIRCUIT JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED;
MOTION GRANTED
J OSEPHINE L INKER H ART, Judge
Randy McBride’s appeal is before us for the third time after we ordered rebriefing and
elected to replace McBride’s appellate counsel after he failed to satisfactorily perform his
duties when we ordered rebriefing. We now decide this case.
On June 19, 2000, McBride pleaded guilty in Jefferson County Circuit Court to two
counts of theft by receiving. He was fined $750, assessed $300 in court costs, and placed on
probation for five years. His probation was conditioned, in pertinent part, on his paying fees
and fines, reporting regularly to his probation officer, not abusing a controlled substance, and
not engaging in any criminal activity. On September 20, 2000, the State petitioned to revoke
McBride’s probation, asserting that he had failed to report. Pursuant to a hearing on that
petition, the trial court found that McBride had indeed failed to report and make payments
on his fees, but continued McBride on probation.
On November 18, 2002, the State filed a “supplemental” petition to revoke, alleging
that McBride had failed to “obey state and federal laws.” At the revocation hearing, there
was evidence presented that McBride had been charged with two counts of aggravated
robbery and that he had failed to report or pay fees since the last hearing. On July 23, 2003,
McBride’s probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to ten years in the Arkansas
Department of Correction.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(j) of the Rules
of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, McBride’s appellate counsel has filed
a motion to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is without merit. The clerk of this court
furnished McBride with a copy of his counsel’s brief and a notification that he has a right to
file a pro se brief within thirty days. McBride has filed pro se points, and the State has filed
a responsive brief.
McBride’s appellate counsel’s motion was accompanied by an abstract and brief
referring to everything in the record that might arguably support an appeal. All objections
were adequately discussed by McBride’s appellate counsel, and our review of the record has
uncovered no procedural irregularities that would support a non-frivolous argument on appeal.
Regarding the merits of McBride’s probation revocation, McBride conceded in his own
testimony that he had willfully violated the conditions of his probation. We hold that there
is a substantial basis for affirming the revocation and that any argument based on the merits
of the revocation would be wholly frivolous.
-2-
CA03-1320
McBride’s pro se points are also unavailing. He asserts an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim, however, it was not timely raised to the trial court and therefore cannot be
considered for the first time on appeal. Ratchford v. State, 357 Ark. 27, 159 S.W.3d 304
(2004).
The other points he lists cannot support a non-frivolous appeal because the
allegations of error were either expressly waived by his trial counsel or simply cannot support
a non-frivolous argument on appeal.
From our review of the record and the briefs presented to us, we find that there was
compliance with Rule 4-3(j) and that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the
revocation of McBride’s probation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed.
Motion to withdraw granted.
B IRD and G RIFFEN, JJ., agree.
-3-
CA03-1320
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
