Shenard Phillips v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, JUDGE
DIVISION IV
CACR07-933
SHENARD PHILLIPS
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
June 25, 2008
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR2007-985]
HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE
RELIEVED GRANTED
Shenard Phillips pleaded nolo contendere in Pulaski County Circuit Court to
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. He was sentenced to 120
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, Phillips’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 notified him of his right to file pro se points for reversal within thirty days.
Phillips availed himself of this opportunity and alleged that his counsel was ineffective.
Phillips’s counsel’s motion was accompanied by an abstract and brief discussing every
adverse ruling in the record that might arguably support an appeal. We find that Phillips’s
counsel has complied with Rule 4-3(j). The sole adverse ruling occurred in the sentencing
hearing. There, Phillips’s counsel disputed the accuracy of the pre-sentence report.
However, when pressed by the trial court, which offered to redo the report, Phillips’s
counsel declined the offer. Accordingly, we conclude that this issue was not preserved for
our review, and any brief on the merits would be wholly frivolous. See Epps v. State, 100
Ark. App. 344, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007). Regarding the sentence imposed, we note that the
trial judge imposed the presumptive sentence, which was well within the range for a Class
Y felony, and further, any argument based on the merits of the revocation would be
wholly frivolous.
Concerning Phillips’s pro se points, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was
not timely raised to the trial court and therefore cannot be considered for the first time on
appeal. Ratchford v. State, 357 Ark. 27, 159 S.W.3d 304 (2004). Therefore, it cannot
support a non-frivolous argument on appeal.
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 Phillips’s sentence.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
HEFFLEY and BAKER, JJ., agree.
-2-
CA07-933
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.
