MARVIN JOE STARKS V. STATE OF ARKANSAS (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Cite as 2018 Ark. App. 31 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-17-133 Opinion Delivered January 24, 2018 MARVIN JOE STARKS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 72CR-16-499] V. HONORABLE MARK LINDSAY, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge Marvin Joe Starks appeals a Washington County Circuit Court order revoking his probation and sentencing him to four years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 43(k) (2017), Starks’s counsel has filed a motion to be relieved as his attorney, alleging that this appeal is without merit. Counsel also filed an accompanying no-merit brief containing an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below. In the brief, counsel includes all adverse decisions affecting Starks and explains in the argument portion of his brief why there is nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal. The clerk mailed a certified copy of counsel’s motion and brief to Starks, informing him of his right to file pro se points for reversal, and he has done so. The test for filing a no-merit brief is not whether there is any reversible error but whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. See Wright v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 300, at 1–2; Tucker v. State, 47 Ark. App. 96, 885 S.W.2d 904 (1994). We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record and the brief presented to us, including consideration of appellant’s pro se points for reversal, which are either not preserved for appeal or do not otherwise support reversal. From our review, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and that there is no merit to an appeal. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. VAUGHT and HIXSON, JJ., agree. Eric Moore, for appellant. Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 2 CR-17-133

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.