Miller v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 466
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CACR10-1000
Opinion Delivered J UNE
LONNIE LYNN MILLER
APPELLANT
29, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE UNION
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-2007-333-4-1]
V.
HONORABLE HAMILTON H.
SINGLETON, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
APPELLEE
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge
This is a no-merit appeal from the revocation of appellant Lonnie Lynn Miller’s
suspended imposition of sentence wherein he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in the
Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw and a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k)(1) (2010). Appellant was provided a copy of his
counsel’s brief and in turn has filed seven pro se points for reversal. We affirm and grant the
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
made on any objection, motion, or request made by either party. Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App.
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 466
363, 47 S.W.3d 918 (2001). The argument section of the brief must contain an explanation
of why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Id. We are bound to
perform a full examination of the proceedings as a whole to decide if an appeal would be
wholly frivolous. Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001). If counsel fails
to address all possible grounds for reversal, we can deny the motion to withdraw and order
rebriefing. Sweeney v. State, 69 Ark. App. 7, 9 S.W.3d 529 (2000).
Appellant’s counsel contends that he has thoroughly examined the record in
compliance with Anders, supra, and Rule 4-3(k)(1), and has found no error that would support
a nonfrivolous appeal in this matter. He contends that the only objection made by appellant
during the hearing was to a question posed by the State to appellant’s mother, Sally Feiland,
concerning whether appellant’s boss may have had a criminal conviction. Appellant’s
objection was based upon relevance and the basis of Ms. Feiland’s knowledge concerning the
man’s status. Counsel contends that, even though the circuit court ruled that the witness
could answer the question, appellant was not prejudiced because the witness responded that
she did not know whether appellant’s boss had a criminal record.
Here, appellant’s counsel’s brief complies with Rule 4-3(k)(1). And after carefully
reviewing the record, we agree with appellant’s counsel’s conclusion: there are no issues of
arguable merit on appeal. The circuit court’s finding that appellant violated at least one
condition of his suspended imposition of sentence, thereby warranting revocation, is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Foster v. State, 104 Ark. App. 108, 289 S.W.3d
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 466
476 (2008). Likewise, appellant’s pro se points for reversal on appeal are either unrelated to
the conviction on appeal or not preserved for appellate review. In short, appellant’s pro se
points on appeal are wholly without merit as well. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s
revocation decision and grant appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
P ITTMAN and B ROWN, JJ., agree.
3
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.
