Ewells v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 43
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
CACR08-84
No.
DAMONT T. EWELLS,
Opinion Delivered
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE
JANUARY 13, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR2006-141I]
HONORABLE JOHN HOMER
WRIGHT, JUDGE,
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge
Appellant Damont T. Ewells was convicted by a Garland County jury on October 11,
2007, of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana with intent
to deliver and was sentenced to 756 months’ 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 counsel has filed a
motion to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is without merit. This motion is accompanied
by an abstract and brief referring to everything in the record that might arguably support an
appeal. 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 brief within thirty days.
Appellant filed a brief asserting the following point of error: The trial court erred in
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 43
denying appellant’s motion to suppress because the stop, search and seizure violated the
Fourth Amendment as well as various statutory provisions. Appellant also argues that his
counsel was ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment
to the United States Constitution.
From our review of the record and the briefs presented to us, we find appellant’s points
address issues that were either wholly outside the record, raised for the first time on appeal,
or fully covered in his counsel’s brief. We find compliance with Rule 4-3(k), and that the
appeal is without merit. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to be relieved is granted, and the
judgments of conviction are affirmed.
Affirmed, and motion to be relieved granted.
HENRY and BROWN, 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.
