Harris v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Slip Opinion
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CACR08-1494
Opinion Delivered
July 1, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE MILLER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR-07-371-2]
CHARLES HARRIS
APPELLANT
HONORABLE JAMES SCOTT
HUDSON, JR., JUDGE
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; COUNSEL’S MOTION TO
BE RELIEVED GRANTED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
On January 2, 2008, the State filed a petition to revoke Charles Harris’s probation in
connection with the underlying offense of nonsupport for failing to pay back child support.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted the petition, revoked appellant’s probation, and
sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
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 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 his counsel’s brief and
notified him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days.
Appellant filed his statement of points, but none of the points that he relies upon were
properly preserved below and cannot serve as a basis for reversal of the revocation of his
probation. Summarizing those points, he contends primarily that his counsel was ineffective;
he requests “that this court just grant me my plea” of six years and get rid of the fines and
restitution; and he alleges that the warrant was dated incorrectly.
The trial court determined that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his
probation based upon his admission that he had failed to pay and report as ordered by the
court. The violation of one condition is sufficient to support a revocation; therefore, his
failure to report alone would be enough and his only excuse for not doing so was that he was
stressed. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d) (Repl. 2006).
From our review of the record, the brief submitted by appellant’s counsel, and
appellant’s statement of points, we find that there has been compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and
that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is
granted, and the revocation of appellant’s probation is affirmed.
Affirmed; counsel’s motion to be relieved is granted.
H ART and M ARSHALL, 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.