Collier v. State , 2013 Ark. App. 451 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                  Cite as 
    2013 Ark. App. 451
    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION IV
    No. CR-12-670
    Opinion Delivered   August 28, 2013
    APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
    JAMES COLLIER III                                 COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    APPELLANT          [No. CR-2011-23-1]
    V.                                                HONORABLE BERLIN C. JONES,
    JUDGE
    STATE OF ARKANSAS                                 AFFIRMED; MOTION                        TO
    APPELLEE        WITHDRAW GRANTED
    LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge
    Appellant James Collier III was convicted by a Jefferson County jury of aggravated
    assault on a family or household member and of committing the assault in the presence of a
    child. He was sentenced to a six-year term of imprisonment for the former conviction and
    a two-year term of imprisonment for the latter, to be served consecutively. Pursuant to
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2012),
    Collier’s counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. 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 would support an appeal. Collier has filed a pro se
    statement of points for reversal, and the State has filed a response to Collier’s statement.1
    1
    This is the second time we have reviewed the case. In Collier v. State, 
    2013 Ark. App. 119
    , we ordered rebriefing because counsel failed to comply with our rules for no-merit cases.
    Specifically, in the prior appeal, we noted that counsel abstracted, but failed to discuss, two
    adverse evidentiary rulings. However, that error has now been corrected, and counsel has again
    filed a motion to withdraw.
    Cite as 
    2013 Ark. App. 451
    The test for filing a no-merit brief is not whether there is any reversible error, but
    rather would an appeal be wholly frivolous. Tucker v. State, 
    47 Ark. App. 96
    , 
    885 S.W.2d 904
    (1994). Based on our review of the record for potential error pursuant to Anders and the
    requirements of Rule 4-3(k), we hold that the appellant’s appeal is wholly without merit.
    Therefore, pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of In re Memorandum Opinions, 
    16 Ark. App. 301
    ,
    
    700 S.W.2d 63
    (1985), we issue this memorandum opinion granting counsel’s motion to be
    relieved and affirming the court’s judgment.
    Affirmed; Motion to withdraw granted.
    WHITEAKER and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
    Cecilia Ashcraft, for appellant.
    Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Jake H. Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CR-12-670

Citation Numbers: 2013 Ark. App. 451

Judges: Larry D. Vaught

Filed Date: 8/28/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016