Henyard v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 367 ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 367
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-13-689
Opinion Delivered June 4, 2014
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
PAUL HENYARD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
APPELLANT [NO. CR-2010-1058]
V. HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR.,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge
In compliance with Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and
Court of Appeals, Henyard’s attorney brings this no-merit appeal along with a motion
asking to be relieved as counsel. The motion to withdraw is accompanied by a brief,
including both a discussion of all matters in the record that might arguably support an
appeal and a statement as to why counsel considers the points to be incapable of
supporting a meritorious appeal. Henyard also filed pro se points. We affirm and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
The circuit court found Paul Henyard guilty of burglary and theft-of-property and
ordered three years’ suspended imposition of sentence and six years’ probation. The State
filed a petition to revoke alleging that, among other things, he failed to pay his fines, costs,
and fees, and that he committed new criminal offenses. The circuit court revoked his
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 367
suspended sentence and probation, sentencing him to a total term of 180 months’
imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
The State needs to show only one violation of probation in order to sustain a
revocation. Phillips v. State, 101 Ark. App. 190, 272 S.W.3d 123 (2008). Here, there was
testimony from an employee of the Crittenden County Sheriff’s Department that Henyard
had not paid any monies toward his fines or costs as ordered. An employee of the
Department of Community Correction also testified that Henyard made no payments
toward his probation fees in the almost two years prior to the revocation. This was
sufficient for the court to find that Henyard violated his terms and conditions by failing to
pay fines, costs, and probation fees.
In his pro se points, Henyard challenges the proof of his commission of new
criminal offenses as grounds for his revocation. Even if Henyard was correct in his
allegation concerning proof of these grounds, there was plenty of evidence supporting the
revocation for failure to pay fines and fees. The State’s proof of one violation is sufficient
to support a revocation. Phillips v. State, 101 Ark. App. 190, 272 S.W.3d 123 (2008).
Henyard also raises what amounts to an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, however
no such claim was raised below. We do not consider ineffective-assistance claims that are
not first made to the trial court. Mace v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 420, 421 S.W.3d 335.
From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find that counsel
has complied with the requirements of Rule 4-3(k)(l) and hold that there is no merit to
this appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the revocation is
affirmed.
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 367
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
PITTMAN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: LeaAnn J. Adams, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3