Harris v. State (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 581 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-14-789 Opinion Delivered October 21, 2015 MARCUS HARRIS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2010-10-1] V. HONORABLE BERLIN C. JONES, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge Marcus Harris pled guilty in 2011 to charges of forgery, a Class B felony, and theft of property, a Class A misdemeanor. He was fined $750 and placed on probation for a period of three years. In 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s probation, alleging that he had violated a number of its conditions. After a hearing at which appellant admitted that he had violated the conditions of his probation by using cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol and by failing to report to his probation officer, the trial court revoked the probation and sentenced appellant to one year of inpatient treatment at a community correction center. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k), appellant’s attorney has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, stating that there is no merit to the appeal. The motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below and a brief in which counsel asserts that there is nothing in the record that Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 581 would support an appeal.1 The clerk of this court mailed copies of counsel’s motion and brief to each of appellant’s three last-known addresses, notifying him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days. Each time, the package was returned “not deliverable” or “unclaimed.” Appellant has filed no statement. From our review of the record and the brief 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 order of revocation is affirmed. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. GRUBER and HIXSON, JJ., agree. Gary W. Potts, for appellant. No response. 1 The addendum has been supplemented as directed in Harris v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 390. 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.