Kelley v. State.1 (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 405 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CACR11-642 Opinion Delivered ORVILLE D. KELLEY APPELLANT June 27, 2012 APPEAL FROM THE CONWAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2010-77.D] V. HONORABLE JERRY RAMEY, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED APPELLEE JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge On March 8, 2011, appellant pled guilty in open court to one count of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. His plea was unconditional. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b). Appellant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment to be followed by five years probation. After being incarcerated, appellant informed counsel that he wished to appeal, and a notice of appeal was filed. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2011), appellant s counsel has filed a motion to be relieved, stating that there is no merit to the appeal. 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 Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 405 appeal. The clerk of this court served appellant with a copy of his counsel s brief and notified him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days. Appellant has filed no statement. From our review of the record and the briefs presented to us, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See Melder v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 388; Gossett v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 835 (subject to limited exceptions not applicable here, one may not appeal from a guilty plea). Appeal dismissed; motion to withdraw granted. GRUBER and HOOFMAN, 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.