Liddell v. State (Majority)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 394 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-14-683 Opinion Delivered June 17, 2015 ALBERT W. LIDDELL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2011-1018] V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR., JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED. RITA W. GRUBER, Judge This no-merit revocation case is before us for the second time. In Liddell v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 172, we ordered rebriefing because counsel had not complied with the requirements of Rules 4-3(k) and 4-2(a)(5) of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals (2014). Counsel now has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw that comply with the requirements of our rules and of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Albert W. Liddell has been notified of his right to file a list of pro se points for reversal, but he has not done so. The State alleged in its petition to revoke that Liddell had violated various conditions of his probation for theft of property. At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the circuit court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Liddell had inexcusably failed to comply with conditions requiring him to pay fines and costs and to pay probation fees; to live a lawabiding life, not violate any laws, and not associate with persons who do; and to cooperate Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 394 with his probation officer and report as directed. By sentencing order of May 6, 2014, Liddell’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to thirty-six months’ imprisonment and thirty-six months’ suspended imposition of sentence. Counsel’s brief adequately explains why none of the adverse rulings arguably constitutes a meritorious ground for reversal. We therefore affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Affirmed; motion granted. HARRISON and VAUGHT, JJ., agree. C. Brian Williams, for appellant. No response. 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.