Turner v. State (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2015 Ark. App. 379 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV no. CR-15-105 NOEL DOUGLAS TURNER APPELLANT Opinion Delivered Jwe 77,2075 APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT lNo. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE cR-13-2071 HONORABLE SANDY HUCKABEE, JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRA'W GRANTED BART F. VIRDEN, Judge The Lonoke Counry Circuit Court found that appellant Noel Douglas Turnerviolated the terms and conditions of his probation and, upon revocation, sentenced him to serve rwo years in prison and suspended imposition of sentence for an additional three-year period. Defense counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the basis that there is no merit to an appeal. Pursuant ro Anders u. California,386 U.S. 738 (1,967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court ofAppeals, counsel's motion to withdrawwas accompanied by a brief that lists all rulings that were adverse to Turner with an explanation why each adverse ruling is not a copy of counsel's not filed any pro a meritorious ground for revenal. Turner was provided with brief and notified of his right to file pro se points. se points for revenal. Turner has 2015 Ark. App. 379 I. Procedural History On March 27,2014, Turner pleaded guilry to third-degree domestic battery and was sentenced to six years' probation. Turner received conditions of his probation, which included, among other things, that he must not commit a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. The State filed a petition to revoke on May 8,2074, alleging that Tumer had violated the conditions of his probation by being arrested on April 17,2014. At the revocation hearing held on October 24,2014, a probation officer testified to several violations, and Turner admitted that he had been arrested while on probation. Further, the Stare introduced into evidence Turner's docket profile from Jacksonville District Court indicating that on September 17 ,2074, he pleaded guilry to committing the following offenses on April 1,1,2074: rwo counts of terroristic chreatening of a law-enforcement officer (Class A misdemeanor),l possession of drug paraphernalia (Class assault (Class A misdemeanor),2 third-degree C misdemeanor).3 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Turner's probation based on his being arrested and pleading guilry to new charges.a II. Adverse Ruling The only adverse ruling was the revocation of Turner's probation. In revocation proceedings, the circuit court must find by a preponderance ofthe evidence that the appellant 1Ark. Code Ann. 5-13-301(bX2) (Repl. 2013). $ 2Ark. Code Ann. 5-64-443(a)(1) (Repl. 2005). $ 'Ark. Code Ann. $ 5-1,3-207(b) (Repl. 2013). aclass A and Class C misdemeanors are punishable by imprisonment. Ark. Code Ann. S s-4-401(b)(1) & (3) (Repl. 2013). -2- 2015 Ark. App. 379 inexcusably violated a condition of probation. Hunter u. State,2013 Ark. App. 387. The State bears the burden ofproofbut needs to prove that the appellant comrnitted only one violation of the conditions. Id.We agree with counsel that, considering the evidence adduced at the hearing, the trial court's revocation of Turner's probation was not clearly against a preponderance of the evidence and would not be a meritorious ground for reversal.s IIL Conclusion From our review ofthe record and briefpresented to us, we conclude that counsel has complied with Rule 4-3(k) and agree that there is no merit to an appeal. Therefore, we affirm the revocation and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. GI-RowtN, CJ., and BnowN, J., agree. Robert M. "Robby" Golden, for appellant. No response. 5'We note that the trial court also revoked Turner's probation on the basis that he failed to report to his probation officer for intake as directed. Because the State did not allege such violation in its petition to revoke, and thus Tumer had no notice of it, the trial court erred in revoking Turner's probation on that basis.' Nevertheless, the State proved that Turner violated his conditions of probation by being arrested on and pleading guilty to new charges, which was sufficient to support revocation. See, e.g., Maxwell u. State,2010 Ark. App.822 (holding that trial court erred in revoking probation on violation not alleged in State's petition but that revocation could be affirmed on violation properly alleged because proof of only one violation is necessary). -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.
