George Christopher v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, JUDGE

DIVISION I

GEORGE CHRISTOPHER

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR00-372

January 24, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR99-185]

HONORABLE JOHN HOMER WRIGHT, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

On August 4, 1999, the court placed appellant on probation for five years for a Class C felony violation of the Arkansas Hot Check Law. On November 30, 1999, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant's probation for violating the conditions of his probation by failing to report to his probation officer, failing to pay supervision fees and restitution, failing to report a change of address and obtain approval for a change of address, and failing to avoid excessive use of alcoholic beverages. The court found that appellant violated the conditions of his probation by failing to report to his probation officer, failing to pay supervision fees, and failing to report a change of address and obtain approval for a change of address. The court revoked appellant's probation and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1)(2000), appellant's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as appellant's attorney, alleging that this appeal is without merit. Counsel presented a brief listing all rulings adverse to appellant and

explaining why each adverse ruling was not a meritorious ground for reversal. Counsel also prepared an abstract containing all rulings adverse to appellant along with other material parts of the record. The clerk of this court attempted to send to appellant by certified mail to the address provided by appellant's counsel a copy of counsel's brief and notify appellant of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days. The package, however, was returned unclaimed, and the clerk has no other way of notifying appellant.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and abstract and agree that none of the rulings adverse to appellant provide a meritorious ground for reversal. Consequently, we grant counsel's motion to be relieved and affirm appellant's conviction.

Affirmed.

Bird and Griffen, JJ., agree.