Jimmy Gene Hill v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JUDGE JOSEPHINE LINKER HART

DIVISION I

JIMMY GENE HILL

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR00-606

July 5, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR99-795]

HONORABLE SAMUEL TURNER, JR., CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

A jury found appellant, Jimmy Gene Hill, guilty of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. He was sentenced to forty-five years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction and fined $15,000. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark.R.Sup.Ct. 4-3(j)(1) (2000), appellant's counsel seeks 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 does not present 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 furnished appellant with a copy of counsel's brief and notified him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days. Appellant filed a prose statement of points raising two issues. Specifically, he contends that the evidence presented was insufficient to support his conviction and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Based on our review, we

agree that there is no merit to this appeal and affirm.

First, appellant points out a number of discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the testimony of the State's witnesses and argues that the State's witnesses were not credible, and, therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. "However, regardless of the discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictory evidence, matters of credibility are for the jury to determine." Nichols v. State, 69 Ark. App. 212, 218, 11 S.W.3d 19, 23 (2000). Thus, there is no merit to his claim that his conviction was not supported by substantial evidence.

Second, appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the jury of the discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictory evidence. Appellant, however, did not raise this claim in the trial court; therefore, the issue is not preserved for appellate review. See id. If he so chooses, he may seek postconviction relief under Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure and raise any allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.1 See Whitney v. State, 326 Ark. 206, 208, 930 S.W.2d 343, 345 (1996).

We have also 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 request to be relieved and affirm appellant's conviction.

Affirmed.

Neal and Vaught, JJ., agree.

1 We note that neither the abstract nor the record contains a motion to suppress.