Brent McJunkins v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, CHIEF JUDGE
DIVISION III
CACR06-78
January 24, 2007
BRENT MCJUNKINS
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM GRANT COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-05-76-2]
V.
HON. PHILLIP H. SHIRRON,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW
GRANTED
APPELLEE
Brent McJunkins was convicted in district court of obstructing governmental
operations and an open burn violation, for which he was fined $520. His appeal to circuit
court was dismissed because it was filed more than thirty days after the district court
judgment and the circuit court never obtained jurisdiction. See Ark. Dist. Ct. R. 9; Kersh v.
State, 56 Ark. App. 39, 938 S.W.2d 569 (1997) (Rule 9 applies to both civil and criminal
appeals).1 He now appeals the order of dismissal.
1
As of June 1, 2006, well after all relevant filings in this case, new Ark. R. Crim.
P. 36 governs criminal appeals from district court to circuit court.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j),
appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is wholly
without merit. The motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings
below, including all objections and motions decided adversely to appellant, and a brief in
which counsel explains why there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal. The
clerk of this court provided appellant with a copy of his counsel’s brief and notified him of
his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days. Appellant did not
file a statement.
From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find compliance with
Rule 4-3(j) and that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted, and the order of dismissal is affirmed.
G LADWIN and R OBBINS, JJ., agree.
-2-
CACR06-78
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.
