Tanya Schwellinger-Aguirre v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JUDGE DAVID M. GLOVER
DIVISION II
CACR07-1129
June 25, 2008
TANYA SCHWELLINGER-AGUIRRE
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR 2000-991-1(A)]
HONORABLE TOMMY J. KEITH,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
Following a revocation hearing on July 9, 2007, the trial court determined that
appellant, Tanya Schwellinger-Aguirre, had violated the terms and conditions of her
probation for the underlying offense of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court
revoked her probation and sentenced her to six years in the Arkansas Department of
Correction, with credit for 211 days.
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 attorney has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit. The motion is
accompanied by an abstract, brief, and addendum referring to everything in the record that
might arguably support the appeal, including all motions, objections, and requests decided
adversely to appellant and a statement of reasons why none of those rulings would be a
meritorious ground for reversal. The clerk of this court furnished appellant with a copy of
her counsel’s brief and notified her of her right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal
within thirty days, but she did not file any points for reversal.
The only adverse decision in this case involves the actual revocation of appellant’s
probation. Even though appellant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at the
revocation hearing, it is not necessary to do so in order to preserve the issue for appeal. Nelson
v. State, 84 Ark. App. 373, 141 S.W.3d 900 (2004). Consequently, appellant’s counsel was
correct in addressing the issue. In testing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
revocation, we do not reverse the trial court’s decision unless its findings are clearly against
the preponderance of the evidence. Gossett v. State, 87 Ark. App. 317, 191 S.W.3d 548
(2004). In making our review, we defer to the superior position of the trial court to
determine questions of credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence. Id. Evidence
that is insufficient for a criminal conviction may be sufficient for a probation revocation.
Morgan v. State, 73 Ark. App. 107, 42 S.W.3d 569 (2001).
Here, the amended petition to revoke listed ten alleged violations of the conditions
of appellant’s probation. At the hearing, the trial court asked appellant if she admitted or
denied the allegations of probation violations. She responded in pertinent part, “I admit I did
the last four. I admit the battery charge and I might have failed to report to my probation
officer one time.” The State only has to show that appellant committed one violation of the
conditions of his probation in order to support a revocation. Richardson v. State, 85 Ark. App.
-2-
347, 157 S.W.3d 536 (2004). Consequently, the trial court’s decision to revoke appellant’s
probation is not clearly erroneous.
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, the judgment of conviction
is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
BIRD and MARSHALL, JJ., agree.
-3-
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.
