Miller v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Slip Opinion
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CACR07-1218
No.
DARNELL MILLER,
Opinion Delivered
JULY 1, 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR05-1058]
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE
HONORABLE DAVID N. LASER,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge
On November 13, 2006, in Crittenden County Circuit Court, appellant Miller pled guilty to
possession of a controlled substance, a Class C felony, and was sentenced to three years’ supervised
probation. On May 7, 2007, the State of Arkansas filed a petition to revoke appellant’s probation,
alleging that he (1) failed to pay fines, costs and fees as directed, (2) failed to report to the probation
officer, (3) failed to pay probation fees, (4) failed to notify the sheriff and probation office of his
current address and employment, and (5) committed burglary and theft by receiving. After a hearing
on the State’s petition to revoke, the trial court found that appellant had violated the conditions of
his probation and sentenced him to twenty-four months in the regional correctional facility.
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 grounds that the appeal is without merit. The motion is accompanied by counsel’s brief in which
counsel explains why there is nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal.
The clerk of this court has attempted to provide appellant with a copy of his counsel’s brief
in order to notify him of his right to file a pro se list of points on appeal within thirty days. The clerk
has made every attempt to locate appellant but has been unable to do so.
From our review of the record and the briefs presented to us, we find compliance with Rule
4-3(k), and that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation.
Affirmed; motion to be relieved granted.
KINARD and HENRY , 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.