Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 12

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

No. CR-22-147

JOHNNY LEE NICHOLS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered January 18, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE POPE

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 

[NO. 58CR-21-361]

HONORABLE JAMES DUNHAM, 

JUDGE

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW GRANTED

STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

Appellant Johnny Lee Nichols was arrested in Russellville, Arkansas, on March 7, 

2021, for possession of methamphetamine. On March 8, the Pope County District Court 

entered an order finding probable cause and setting pretrial release conditions, setting bail 

at $7500 and ordering Nichols to appear in the Pope County Circuit Court on April 5, 

2021. Nichols signed the order, acknowledging that he had received a copy of the order and 

understood the conditions of pretrial release. However, Nichols did not appear in court on 

April 5, resulting in an additional charge of failure to appear, a Class C felony, being filed 

against him and a bench warrant being issued for his arrest. After a bench trial, Nichols was 

found guilty of failing to appear, and he was sentenced, as a habitual offender with more 

than five prior felony offenses, to six years in the Arkansas Department of Correction, with 
2

an additional eight-year suspended imposition of sentence, to run concurrently with the 

sentence imposed in case No. CR-22-146.1

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(b)(1) 

(2022), Nichols’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief, along with a motion to be relieved as 

counsel, asserting that there is no issue of arguable merit on appeal. The clerk of this court 

provided Nichols with a copy of his counsel’s brief and notified him of his right to file a pro 

se statement of points for reversal. Nichols has filed pro se points, and the State has filed a 

brief in response to those points. We affirm Nichols’s conviction and grant counsel’s motion 

to withdraw.

Nichols’s counsel addresses the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the failure-toappear conviction. Counsel cites Strickland v. State, 322 Ark. 312, 909 S.W.2d 318 (1995), 

for the proposition that there is no need for a defendant to make a motion on the sufficiency 

of the evidence in a bench trial in order to raise the issue on appeal. However, Strickland was 

overturned by a 1999 amendment to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1, which 

provides that in a nonjury trial, a motion for dismissal must be made at the close of all the 

evidence and shall state the specific grounds for the motion; if this is not done, any argument 

pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence is waived. Because there was no motion to 

 

1Nichols v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 11, which is also being handed down today, is a 

companion case involving Nichols’s conviction for the possession of methamphetamine on 

March 7, 2021. 
3

dismiss the failure-to-appear charge at the close of all the evidence, any sufficiency argument 

is not preserved for appellate review.

Nevertheless, had the sufficiency argument been preserved, there is no meritorious

argument for reversal to be made. To be convicted of failure to appear under Arkansas Code 

Annotated section 5-54-120(b)(2) (Supp. 2021), the State must prove the defendant (1) failed 

to appear, (2) without a reasonable excuse, (3) after having been lawfully set at liberty, (4) 

upon the condition that he appear at a specified time, place, and court. Hyatt v. State, 2020 

Ark. App. 390, 607 S.W.3d 180. Documentary proof of the court’s verbal or written order 

to appear in a court at a specific time and place is required. Id. At trial, Nichols first blamed 

his bail bondsman for giving him the incorrect date to appear, but he then admitted that he 

spoke with his bondsman after he had failed to appear, and he tacitly admitted the failure to 

appear was his fault. When shown the order that he signed stating he was to appear in the 

Pope County Circuit Court on April 5, Nichols did not deny signing the order but simply 

said he had been trying to get out of jail, and it was “confusing.” The evidence presented 

was sufficient to support Nichols’s conviction for failure to appear.

Counsel also addresses three other adverse rulings. Two of the adverse rulings 

occurred after Nichols testified on direct examination that he had never had the opportunity 

to address other circuit courts concerning his prior charges and convictions. On crossexamination, the prosecutor asked Nichols what he would have told the Washington County 

Circuit Court when he was convicted in 2003; Nichols’s counsel objected on the basis of 

speculation, and the objection was overruled. The prosecutor then asked Nichols what he 
4

would have said to the Benton County Circuit Court when he was convicted of four offenses, 

and counsel again objected on the basis of speculation, which was also overruled.

Rulings on the admissibility of evidence generally are matters within a circuit court’s 

discretion, and those rulings are not disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of 

that discretion and prejudice. Davis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 104. A witness must have 

personal knowledge of the matter about which he is testifying. Ark. R. Evid. 601 (2022). 

Here, Nichols claimed that he had never been allowed to address the circuit courts that had 

found him guilty of his prior convictions. The prosecutor gave Nichols the opportunity to 

state what he would have told the circuit courts in his prior cases. Nichols would be the only 

person with personal knowledge of what he had wanted to say to the circuit courts. These 

adverse rulings do not form a meritorious basis for reversal of Nichols’s conviction.

The last adverse ruling addressed by counsel concerned Nichols’s request to be sent 

to drug rehabilitation instead of to prison. Nichols’s former employer, Ben Green, testified 

that he believed Nichols would be better served in a rehabilitation center rather than prison, 

and he was willing to help Nichols in any way he could. The circuit court fined Nichols 

$150 and sentenced him to six years in the Arkansas Department of Correction followed by 

an eight-year suspended imposition of sentence with a special condition that Nichols obtain 

a substance and mental-health assessment and follow all recommendations of the evaluator 

during his suspended sentence.

A person convicted of a Class C felony shall be sentenced to not less than three years 

nor more than ten years. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(4) (Repl. 2013). However, a person 
5

who has previously been convicted of four or more felonies shall be sentenced as a habitual 

offender to an extended term of not more than thirty years for a Class C felony. Ark. Code 

Ann. § 5-4-501(b)(2)(D) (Supp. 2021). The circuit court’s sentence is well within the range 

of punishment allowed by the statute.

Nichols has also filed pro se points. One of his pro se points concerns the sufficiency 

of the evidence, which has been addressed above. Nichols also argues that the circuit court 

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear his case. The issue of jurisdiction is one that can 

be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal. Baldwin v. State, 74 Ark. App. 69, 45 

S.W.3d 412 (2001). Nichols’s argument is meritless because the circuit court has subjectmatter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes. 

Wolfe v. Payne, 2021 Ark. 87, 622 S.W.3d 625. Moreover, a circuit court has personal 

jurisdiction over offenses committed within the county over which it presides. Id. It is 

undisputed that Nichols failed to appear in the Pope County Circuit Court when ordered 

to do so. The circuit court had jurisdiction to preside over Nichols’s trial and conviction, 

and his jurisdictional challenge fails. The remainder of Nichols’s pro se points are not 

preserved for appellate review because they were never raised to the circuit court. An 

appellant must raise an issue, including constitutional issues, in the circuit court and support 

it with a sufficient argument and legal authority, if there is any, to preserve it for an appeal; 

if a particular theory was not presented to and ruled upon by the circuit court, then the 

theory will not be reviewed on appeal. Schermerhorn v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 395, 500 S.W.3d 

181.
6

When filing a no-merit brief, the test for counsel is not whether there is any reversible 

error but whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. See Honey v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 

496. Pursuant to Anders, however, we are required to fully examine all the proceedings to 

determine whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Williams v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 

164. From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we conclude there is 

compliance with Anders and Rule 4-3(b) and that there are no nonfrivolous arguments that 

could serve as the basis for an appeal. We affirm Nichols’s conviction and grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

GRUBER and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Samuel F. Eastman, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.