Samantha Meredith Tomberlin v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
BRIAN S. MILLER, JUDGE
DIVISION II
CACR06-0577
June 27, 2007
SAMANTHA MEREDITH TOMBERLIN
APPELLANT
v.
AN APPEAL FROM THE WHITE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR-03-548]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE WILLIAM PICKENS MILLS,
JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW
GRANTED
Following a bench trial, appellant Samantha Tomberlin was convicted of violating
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-37-302 (Repl. 2006), the Arkansas Hot Check Law. She was sentenced
to three years’ probation.
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, Tomberlin’s counsel has filed a
motion to withdraw on the ground that this appeal is wholly without merit. The motion was
accompanied by a brief purportedly discussing all matters in the record that might arguably
support an appeal, including the adverse rulings, and a statement as to why counsel considers
each point raised as incapable of supporting a meritorious appeal. Tomberlin was provided
with a copy of her counsel’s brief and notified of her right to file pro se points for reversal.
Tomberlin has elected to file points for reversal. The State has filed a brief in response to
Tomberlin’s pro se points.
In her points for reversal, Tomberlin challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support her conviction. Tomberlin, however, waived her challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence when she failed to renew her motion for directed verdict at the close of all the
evidence. Rule 33.1 (b) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
In a nonjury trial, if a motion for dismissal is to be made, it shall be made at the close
of all of the evidence. The motion for dismissal shall state the specific grounds
therefor. If the defendant moved for dismissal at the conclusion of the prosecution's
evidence, then the motion must be renewed at the close of all of the evidence.
Rule 33.1 is strictly construed. State v. Holmes, 347 Ark. 689, 66 S.W.3d 640 (2002).
Tomberlin failed to renew her motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence;
accordingly, any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for appellate
review.
From our review of the record, the brief presented to us, and Tomberlin’s points for
reversal, 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 judgment of conviction is
affirmed.
Affirmed.
G LADWIN and M ARSHALL, JJ., agree.
2
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.
