Britt v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 21
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CACR09-253
No.
Opinion Delivered
January 13, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-93-768]
DOUGLAS E. BRITT
APPELLANT
HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR,
JUDGE
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE
RELIEVED GRANTED
APPELLEE
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge
This is an appeal from an order revoking appellant Douglas Britt’s suspended sentence
and sentencing him to two years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief
and a motion to be relieved as counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1), asserting that there is no non-frivolous argument to be made in
support of an appeal. The clerk of this court furnished appellant a certified copy of his counsel’s
brief and motion to be relieved, informing appellant that he had the right to file pro se points
for reversal. Appellant has not filed a pro se points in this matter.
On February 2, 1994, appellant pled guilty to overdraft charges, a class C felony. He was
sentenced to a five-year suspended imposition of sentence conditioned on good behavior and
ordered to pay fines, court costs, and restitution of $2,366.12 at the rate of $75.00 per month
1
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 21
beginning March 1, 1994. On December 6, 1994, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s
suspended sentence for failure to pay restitution. A hearing on the petition was held on
November 18, 2008. A restitution ledger and a fines-and-costs ledger were introduced into
evidence, both establishing that appellant had made no restitution payments. The only testimony
was that of appellant who admitted that he failed to pay restitution. He said he forgot to pay the
restitution, testifying that it just “slipped his mind.” He asked the court for additional time to
make the payments. The trial court questioned the credibility of the appellant and found that he
had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence.
Appellant’s counsel correctly argues that the only ruling below adverse to appellant was
the revocation decision. Counsel asserts that because appellant admitted the violation, the trial
court properly revoked appellant’s suspended sentence. We agree that appellant’s own testimony
along with the restitution ledger and the fines-and-costs ledger supported the trial court’s
decision. As such, we affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.
Affirmed; motion to be relieved granted.
GLOVER and MARSHALL, 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.
