Carl Allen v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
ar00-323

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION III

CARL ALLEN

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR00-323

May 2, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-99-504-2]

HON. H. A. TAYLOR, JR.,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Carl Allen was convicted at a jury trial of first-degree battery and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment, with ten years suspended, for each offense. 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, appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is without merit. The motion is accompanied by an abstract 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 filed such a statement, but his arguments all either present questions that were decided in his favor by the trial court; concern issues that clearly are not within the scope of his objections at trial and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; raise issues that are fully covered in his counsel's brief; or pertain to complaints of ineffective assistance of counsel, which the trial court correctly refused to entertain because they were raised only after the appeal to this court was filed, see Ark. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(2), and which will not be addressed for the first time on appeal.

From our review of the record and the briefs presented to us, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(j), and that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and the convictions are affirmed.

Stroud, C.J., and Roaf, J., agree.

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.