Burris v. State
2017 Ark. App. 386
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Burris pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree sexual assault in April 2015; sentence: 5 years’ probation on one count and 15 years’ suspended imposition on the other with conditions (including no contact with victims and monthly $70 payments).
- State filed petition to revoke on April 26, 2016, alleging Burris contacted a victim (his sister B.B.) and failed to make required payments.
- At the revocation hearing, victims and their mother testified Burris made multiple contacts; fines coordinator testified Burris made only two small payments during the year.
- Burris, his fiancée, and his mother testified contacts were involuntary or that Burris told the victim to leave; Burris claimed he paid when he could and lost his job due to injury.
- Circuit court found State witnesses more credible, concluded Burris violated conditions by contacting the victim and failing to pay, revoked probation and imposed 10 years in ADC plus 10 years’ suspended sentence; Burris appealed.
- Appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders, concluding appeal was wholly without merit; court reviewed adverse rulings and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Burris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for revocation | Evidence showed prohibited contact with victim and nonpayment | Contacts were involuntary; he paid when able and lost job | Court upheld revocation; credibility resolved for State and preponderance met |
| Hearsay objection to fiancée’s testimony about payments | Objection proper because testimony needed foundation/personal knowledge | Testimony necessary to show payments made | Court found sustaining objection proper under Rule 602; counsel later laid foundation and no prejudice shown |
| Relevance objection to fiancée’s testimony about her age when dating Burris | State implied background context | Burris argued age irrelevant to revocation issues | Court deemed testimony arguably irrelevant but harmless; no prejudice and bench presumed to consider only relevant evidence |
| Motion for continuance | State (or court) proceeded where hearing set; counsel ultimately ready | Burris sought continuance because counsel had conflicting setting | Court did not rule on motion but issue not preserved; no abuse shown and no prejudice since counsel proceeded |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363 (2001) (requirements for Anders-type withdrawal brief in Arkansas)
- Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277 (2001) (duty to ensure indigent’s constitutional rights in Anders review)
- Edison v. State, 2015 Ark. 376 (2015) (Rule 602 personal-knowledge limitation and harmless-error standard)
- Johnson v. State, 2014 Ark. 110 (2014) (no reversal where inadmissible evidence is harmless because other evidence is overwhelming)
- Price v. State, 365 Ark. 25 (2006) (continuance standards and demonstration of prejudice required to show abuse)
- Marshall v. State, 342 Ark. 172 (2000) (presumption that a bench court considers only relevant evidence)