Thomas v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 637
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CACR09-1031
Opinion Delivered
September 29, 2010
KHAYAM THOMAS
V.
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH
DIVISION
[NO. CR2008-2138]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE WILLARD
PROCTOR, JR., JUDGE
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
This no-merit appeal is once more before us after we ordered rebriefing so that
Thomas’s counsel could address an adverse ruling that he had failed to discuss in his first brief.
As noted in our previous opinion, Khayam Thomas was found guilty in a Pulaski County
Circuit Court bench trial of breaking or entering and felony and misdemeanor counts of theft
of property. A motion to suppress his identification was tried simultaneously during the guilt
phase of his trial. He received thirty-six months’ supervised probation.
Once again, 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, Thomas’s counsel has filed
a motion to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is without merit. The clerk of this court
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 637
attempted to furnish appellant with a copy of his counsel’s brief and notify him of his right to
file pro se points for reversal within thirty days. Thomas could not be located.
The motion submitted by Thomas’s counsel was accompanied by an abstract and brief
referring to everything in the record that might arguably support an appeal. We are satisfied
that the supplemented argument section now contains an adequate discussion of the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting Thomas’s conviction.
After a careful review of the record and counsel’s brief, we find compliance with Rule
4-3(k) and conclude that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
motion to be relieved and affirm appellant’s conviction.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw as counsel granted.
V AUGHT, C.J., and P ITTMAN, J., 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.
