Kent Allan Wyatt v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
ar00-726

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION II

KENT ALLAN WYATT

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR00-726

January 24, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE FULTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR99-14]

HON. JOHN DAN KEMP, JR.,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

In October 1999, the appellant, Kent Allan Wyatt, pleaded guilty to violation of the Arkansas Hot Check Law. Appellant was fined, ordered to pay restitution, and placed on supervised probation for a period of five years subject to written conditions. In December 1999, the prosecuting attorney filed a petition to revoke appellant's probation, alleging that appellant had violated its conditions in several respects. After a hearing, the trial court found that appellant had failed to report to his probation officer as ordered, had failed to complete a court-ordered substance-abuse program, and had committed the offense of second-degree criminal mischief. The trial court revoked appellant's probation and sentenced him to six years in the Arkansas Department of Correction.

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 the only objection 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 without merit. Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and the order of revocation is affirmed.

Jennings and Neal, JJ., 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.