Larry Thomas Butler v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION SAM BIRD, JUDGE

DIVISION II

LARRY THOMAS BUTLER,

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,

APPELLEE

CACR00-757

JULY 5, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NO. CR99-3580,

HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Larry Thomas Butler was tried by a jury for aggravated robbery, theft of property valued in excess of $2500, and terroristic threatening in the first degree, the charges against him arising from an incident when he drove a Lincoln Navigator from a dealership's parking lot and had an encounter with a police officer who was attempting to arrest him for theft of the car. Butler was convicted of robbery, theft of property valued in excess of $2500, and terroristic threatening in the second degree. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to imprisonment of seven and one-half years each for the robbery and the theft, and to a fine of $1000 for the terroristic threatening. The court ordered the sentences of imprisonment to run consecutively for a total of fifteen years.

Butler's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that his appeal has no merit. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(2000), her motion was accompanied by a brief including an abstract and argument that

address all trial rulings that were adverse to Butler. The clerk of this court furnished a copy of counsel's brief to Butler and notified him of his right to raise any points of appeal. Butler then filed a pro se brief, and the State filed a brief in response to his points. Counsel explains in the argument portion of her brief why there is no merit to any of the adverse trial rulings. Butler refers in his pro se brief to rulings that he contends were erroneous. The State agrees in its brief with Butler's counsel that there are no meritorious grounds for reversal. The State further contends that no reversible error can be found in the several points raised by Butler, all of which pertain to his counsel's ineffectiveness at trial or to the credibility of witnesses. We agree that Butler's claims cannot support reversal. It is well-settled that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised on direct appeal unless it was first considered by the circuit court. Alexander v. State, 55 Ark. App. 148, 934 S.W.2d 927 (1996). Because Butler did not present his ineffective-assistance claim to the circuit court, he is prohibited from raising it on appeal. Neither can his claims relating to the credibility of witnesses support reversal, as determinations of credibility are matters for the trial court. Ashe v. State, 57 Ark. App. 99, 942 S.W.2d 267 (1997). From our review of the record and the briefs presented to this court, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(j) and we conclude that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, counsel's motion to be relieved is granted and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Motion granted; conviction affirmed.

Baker, J., agrees.

Roaf, J., concurs.