Jeighmichael S. Davis v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, JUDGE
DIVISION III
CACR06-833
JEIGHMICHAEL S. DAVIS
June 27, 2007
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE BRADLEY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-02-85-1]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HON. SAMUEL B. POPE,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
On August 23, 2003, Jeighmichael S. Davis pleaded guilty to the charge of theft by
receiving, a Class B Felony. He was placed on probation for sixty months conditioned, in
pertinent part, on his not committing any felony or misdemeanor criminal offense punishable
by confinement in jail or prison. On January 10, 2006, a revocation hearing was held
simultaneously with a trial on aggravated robbery charges.
Davis was found guilty of
aggravated robbery, and his probation was revoked due to his commission of that crime. After
the revocation of his probation, Davis was sentenced to seventy-two months 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, Davis’s counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw on grounds that the appeal is without merit. The clerk of this court furnished
appellant with a copy of his counsel’s brief and a notification that he has a right to file a pro
se brief within thirty days. Davis did not submit any pro se points, and the State has not filed
a brief.
Davis’s counsel’s motion was accompanied by an abstract and brief referring to
everything in the record that might arguably support an appeal. We hold that, based on our
review of the record, Davis’s counsel has identified all the adverse rulings and that his
discussion of why these adverse rulings would not support a non-frivolous appeal comport with
Anders v. California, supra, and Rule 4-3(j). Regarding the merits of the revocation, we agree
that there is a substantial basis for affirming the revocation and that any argument based on the
merits of the revocation would be wholly frivolous.
From our review of the record and the briefs presented to us, we find that there was
compliance with Rule 4-3(j) and that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the revocation of Davis’s probation.
Affirmed.
Motion to withdraw granted.
G RIFFEN and G LOVER, JJ., agree.
-2-
CACR06-833
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.
