Blockman v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 503
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CACR 09-818
DARYL BLOCKMAN
Opinion Delivered JUNE 16, 2010
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2005-106]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE JOHN N.
FOGLEMAN, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
A Crittenden County judge revoked Daryl Blockman’s probation and ordered him to
serve five years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. His attorney has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel, citing an inability to find a meritorious ground for reversal. Counsel has
submitted a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California1 and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule
4-3(k). Blockman has filed no pro se points. We agree that an appeal would be wholly
without merit. Thus, we affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
An attorney’s request to withdraw from appellate representation based upon a meritless
appeal must be accompanied by a brief that contains a list of all rulings adverse to his client
1
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 503
made on any objection, motion, or request made by either party.2 The argument section of
the brief must contain an explanation of why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground
for reversal.3 We are bound to perform a full examination of the proceedings as a whole to
decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous.4 If counsel fails to address all possible grounds
for reversal, we can deny the motion to withdraw and order rebriefing.5
The record reveals two adverse rulings: an evidentiary ruling and the decision to
revoke Blockman’s probation. Blockman was serving five years’ probation for possession of
marijuana with intent to sell. The State filed a petition to revoke on July 18, 2007, alleging
that Blockman failed to pay fines, costs, and fees; failed to report to his probation officer; and
used marijuana. Deborah Wiseman, who collects fines for the county, testified that Blockman
was assessed $1750 in fines and costs and that he made no payments in 2007 and sporadic
payments since then. In addition, his probation officer testified that he did not report between
August 2006 and August 2008. He tested positive for marijuana three times before he stopped
reporting and twice since he began reporting in August 2008. After hearing this testimony,
as well as testimony from Blockman himself, the court revoked Blockman’s probation and
sentenced him to five years in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
2
Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363, 47 S.W.3d 918 (2001).
3
Id.
4
Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001).
5
Sweeney v. State, 69 Ark. App. 7, 9 S.W.3d 529 (2000).
-22
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 503
An appeal from the revocation would be frivolous. A sentence of probation or a
suspended sentence may be revoked when a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence
that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his probation or
suspended sentence.6 The State need only show that the appellant committed one violation
to sustain a revocation.7 Here, the record supports a finding that Blockman continued to
smoke marijuana, failed to report, and failed to pay fines and costs. All were violations of the
terms and conditions of his probation, and this evidence was sufficient to support the decision
to revoke his probation.
The only other adverse ruling occurred while Blockman’s attorney was questioning
the probation officer. When counsel began to ask whether the officer would be willing to
continue his probation, the State objected. The court sustained the objection on relevancy
grounds. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the objection,8 as it is the
court, not the probation officer, that decides whether to revoke one’s probation.
An appeal here would be wholly without merit. Counsel has complied with the
dictates of Anders v. California and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k). Accordingly, we
affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
6
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d) (Repl. 2008); Williams v. State, 351 Ark. 229, 91 S.W.3d 68
7
Richardson v. State, 85 Ark. App. 347, 157 S.W.3d 536 (2004).
(2002).
8
See Echols v. State, 326 Ark. 917, 936 S.W.2d 509 (1996) (stating that a trial court’s ruling
on relevancy is not reversed absent an abuse of discretion and a showing of prejudice).
-33
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 503
VAUGHT, C.J., and GRUBER, J., agree.
-44
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.
