Isaac Marshall Dale v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ar04-260

DIVISION IV

ISAAC MARSHALL DALE

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR04-260

June 29, 2005

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR2003-2010]

HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON,

JUDGE

AFFIRMED

John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge

Isaac Marshall Dale was convicted at a jury trial of the Class "Y" felony of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to the statutory minimum ten years' imprisonment. 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 and addendum 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 attorney'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 points all either concern issues that clearly are not within the scope of his objections or requests in the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; raise matters that are fully covered in his counsel's brief and about

which there are no arguable issues; or seek to have this court search the record for any unpreserved, plain errors, which, with limited exceptions not applicable here, our courts do not recognize. See Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980).

From our review of the entire record and the briefs presented to us, see Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 280, 53 S.W.3d 48 (2001) (supp. op. on denial of reh'g), 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 conviction is affirmed.

Robbins and Vaught, JJ., agree.