Court Opinion

ID: 9839430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 14:03:49.470855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:01.681654
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 381
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION IV
                                       No. CR-22-675

                                               Opinion Delivered   September 13, 2023
 OSCAR HILL
                               APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE VAN BUREN
                                         COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                                         [NO. 71CR-19-6]
 V.
                                               HONORABLE H.G. FOSTER, JUDGE
 STATE OF ARKANSAS
                                               AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW
                                 APPELLEE
                                               GRANTED

                                RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

       Appellant Oscar Hill appeals from an order of the Van Buren County Circuit Court

revoking his probation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-

3(b) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Hill’s counsel has

filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw asserting that there is no issue of arguable

merit to raise on appeal. The clerk of this court sent Hill a copy of his counsel’s brief and

motion to inform him of his right to file pro se points for reversal. He did not file pro se

points. We affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

       On January 14, 2019, the State filed a felony information charging Hill with

possession of drug paraphernalia to ingest or inhale; possession of methamphetamine or

cocaine with purpose to deliver (less than two grams); possession of a controlled substance

(Schedule III less than two grams); driving with a canceled, suspended, or revoked license;
and operation of a vehicle without the minimum insurance coverage required by law. Hill

entered a negotiated guilty plea to possession of drug paraphernalia (a Class D felony) and

possession of methamphetamine/cocaine (less than two grams) (a Class C felony). In a July

24, 2019 sentencing order, appellant was sentenced to thirty-six months’ probation for each

offense to run concurrently. The conditions of Hill’s probation included that he not violate

the law and report any arrest or questioning by law enforcement within twenty-four hours;

report to the probation office as directed; not purchase, own, or possess any firearm; pay

probation fees as scheduled; abstain from using alcoholic beverages and illegal drugs; and

periodically submit to drug and blood-alcohol tests.

       The State filed a petition to revoke Hill’s probation on December 4, 2020, alleging

that he was arrested on August 24, 2020, released on August 25, and failed to notify his

supervising officer within twenty-four hours of the arrest; failed to make himself available for

random drug testing; failed to report to his supervising officer on October 5, 2020, and failed

to make contact with his supervising officer since August 11, 2020; failed to provide his

supervising officer with his current address or proof of gainful employment for the months

of September, October, and November; failed to provide his supervising officer with proof

of fine payments for the months of September, October, and November; and failed to

complete community service as directed by his supervising officer.

       A revocation hearing took place on August 15, 2022. Jimmy Carter, a probation and

parole agent for Arkansas Department of Community Correction, testified that Hill began

his supervision on July 22, 2019. Carter said that Hill violated the conditions when he failed

                                               2
to report to his supervising officer within twenty-four hours after being arrested in Faulkner

County on August 24, 2020; failed to make himself available for drug testing by absenting

himself from supervision; failed to appear on October 5, 2020; and had no contact since the

failure to appear. Carter testified that the agency had not heard from Hill in two years,

explaining that Hill failed to provide his supervising officer with a current address or proof

of gainful employment for September, October, and November of 2019, at which point he

absconded. When Hill was eventually arrested, he tested positive for methamphetamine and

amphetamine.

       Hill testified that he had not reported because he and his wife were divorcing after he

learned that he was not the father of their six-month-old baby. He said he had to move out

of the house when they separated, stating that “it was at a bad time. And I just failed to

report.” Hill admitted fault but said he had maintained the same job for the past eight years

and that he owns a home in Van Buren County.

       At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court found that Hill was in violation of

the conditions of his probation by failing to report as required. Pursuant to the August 25,

2022 sentencing order, the circuit court revoked Hill’s probation for possession of drug

paraphernalia and possession of methamphetamine/cocaine with purpose to deliver (less

than two grams) and sentenced him to concurrent sentences of 72 months’ and 120 months’

imprisonment. This no-merit appeal followed.

       Rule 4-3(b) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

requires the argument section of a no-merit brief to contain “a list of all rulings adverse to

                                              3
the defendant made by the circuit court on all objections, motions and requests . . . with an

explanation as to why each . . . is not a meritorious ground for reversal.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-

3(b) (2022). The requirement for briefing every adverse ruling ensures that the due-process

concerns in Anders are met and prevents the unnecessary risk of a deficient Anders brief

resulting in an incorrect decision on counsel’s motion to withdraw. Vail v. State, 2019 Ark.

App. 8. Pursuant to Anders, we are required to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous

after a full examination of all the proceedings. T.S. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 578, 534 S.W.3d

160.

       Counsel adequately addresses the only adverse ruling—the revocation of Hill’s

probation. The circuit court found that Hill was in violation of the conditions of his

probation for failing to report as required, noting that he lived nearby and did not report

for two years. The court stated that it heard Hill testify that he “panicked and that sort of

stuff. That is a natural human reaction. But at some point, in two years, . . . if I lived within

20 miles of the Sheriff’s office, it would have occurred to me to go down there and figure

out what the situation was.”

       In order to revoke, the circuit court must find the State proved by a preponderance

of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably violated a condition of the probation.

Gonzales v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 219, at 3, 599 S.W.3d 341, 343. When multiple violations

are alleged, a circuit court’s revocation will be affirmed if the evidence is sufficient to

establish that the appellant violated any one condition of the probation. Id. A circuit court’s

revocation of probation will be affirmed on appeal unless the decision is clearly against the

                                               4
preponderance of the evidence. Id. This court defers to the circuit court’s determinations

regarding witness credibility and the weight to be accorded testimony. Id.

       In the present case, the conditions of Hill’s probation required him to report to his

probation officer as directed. There was testimony from the probation officer that Hill failed

to report as required. Hill admitted that he failed to report because he was going through a

“bad time.” The circuit court, however, was not required to believe him or excuse his failure

to comply with the conditions. Owens v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 876, at 8, 372 S.W.3d 415,

419–20. We agree that there would be no merit to an appeal of the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting the revocation.

       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 is no nonfrivolous argument that

could serve as the basis for an appeal. Thus, we affirm and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

       Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

       ABRAMSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.

       Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for appellant.

       One brief only.

                                              5