Brown v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Slip Opinion
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CACR 07-1216
No.
Opinion Delivered July
ROBERT L. BROWN
1, 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-89-210]
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
HONORABLE DAVID BURNETT,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE
RELIEVED GRANTED
COURTNEY HUDSON HENRY, Judge
In January 1990, appellant Robert L. Brown pled guilty to the offense of burglary for
which the trial court suspended imposition of sentence for twenty years. In June 2007, the
State filed a petition to revoke alleging that appellant violated the terms of his suspended
sentence by delivering cocaine. After a hearing, the trial court granted the petition to revoke
and sentenced appellant to ten years in prison.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules
of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion
to withdraw on the ground that this appeal is wholly without merit. Accompanying this
motion, counsel has filed a brief which contains an abstract, addendum, and argument section
listing all adverse rulings made by the circuit court with an explanation as to why each
adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.1 The clerk of this court sent appellant
a copy of counsel’s brief and notified him of the right to raise pro se points on appeal.
Appellant chose not to file any points on appeal.
After a careful review of the record and counsel’s brief, we find compliance with Rule
4-3(k) and conclude that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
motion to be relieved and affirm the revocation of appellant’s suspended imposition of
sentence.
Affirmed; motion granted.
K INARD and B AKER, JJ., agree.
1
In a previous opinion, we ordered rebriefing because counsel’s original brief did not
list or discuss two adverse rulings. Brown v. State, CACR07-1216 (Jun. 25, 2008).
-2-
CACR 07-1216
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.
