Ault v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 535
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CACR09-949
No.
Opinion Delivered
AARON AULT
APPELLANT
June 30, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2008-23]
V.
HONORABLE DAVID L. REYNOLDS,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
APPELLEE
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge
On July 7, 2008, appellant Aaron Ault entered a plea of guilty to theft by receiving, a
Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced him to sixty months’ probation. A condition of
probation stated that Ault shall not violate any local, state, or federal laws. On April 14, 2009,
Ault entered a plea of guilty to robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to sixty months of
probation and 120 days in the Garland County Jail. Subsequently, the State filed a petition to
revoke Ault’s probation based on his violation of Arkansas law. Following a hearing, the trial
court found that Ault had violated the terms and conditions of his probation, and it sentenced
him to 120 months’ incarceration.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1), Ault’s
counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is wholly without merit. The
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 535
motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below, including all
objections and motions decided adversely to Ault, 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
Ault 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. Ault did not file a statement.
From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find compliance with
Rule 4-3(k)(1) and that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted, and the order of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
G RUBER and B ROWN, JJ., agree.
-2-
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.
