Fox v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 22
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CACR09-344
No.
Opinion Delivered
January 13, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2003-586]
JAMIE DEACHELL FOX
APPELLANT
HONORABLE DAVID BURNETT,
JUDGE
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE
RELIEVED GRANTED
APPELLEE
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge
On December 8, 2003, the circuit court placed appellant, Jamie Deachell Fox, on
probation for sixty months after she pled guilty to the crime of possession of drug paraphernalia
with intent to manufacture. On March 11, 2008, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s
probation, alleging that she violated several conditions of her probation. Following a September
2, 2008 hearing in the matter, the circuit court revoked appellant’s probation after finding that
she failed to pay the fines and fees associated with her release; possessed drug paraphernalia with
the intent to manufacture methamphetamine; possessed methamphetamine; and associated with
known felons. The court sentenced her to ten years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department
of Correction. Appellant filed her timely notice of appeal on September 25, 2008.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k),
1
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 22
appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is wholly without
merit. The motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below,
including all objections and motions decided adversely to appellant, and a brief in which counsel
explains why there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal. The clerk of this court
sent appellant a certified copy of his counsel’s brief and motion to be relieved and informed her
that she had the right to file pro se points for reversal. Appellant did not file any pro se points.
From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we hold that appellant’s
counsel complied with Rule 4-3(k) and that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly,
counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the order is affirmed.
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.
