Foster v. State
2017 Ark. App. 389
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Corderro Foster pled guilty in 2014 to possession of cocaine and was sentenced to three years’ probation with standard conditions (no new crimes, no drug/alcohol use, report to officer, pay fines/costs).
- The State filed a petition to revoke in Jan 2015, alleging new criminal activity (burglary, theft), drug use, failure to report, and unpaid fines; a supplemental petition alleged further charges including aggravated robbery and firearm-possession-related counts.
- At the February 2016 revocation hearing, police testimony tied Foster to (a) an alleged Jan 12, 2015 aggravated robbery where victims tentatively identified him and a co-defendant admitted involvement; (b) a Nov 4, 2014 burglary where Foster’s DNA was on a cigarette butt and his fingerprints were on a recovered stolen vehicle; and (c) an alleged Jan 2015 escape from custody where Foster allegedly aided in removing handcuffs and injured a guard.
- The circuit court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Foster violated multiple probation conditions and revoked probation.
- Foster was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment; counsel filed an Anders/no-merit brief and moved to withdraw. Foster was notified of his right to file pro se points but did not.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, holding the appeal frivolous and that the evidence supported revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred in revoking Foster’s probation | State: Proof by preponderance showed Foster committed new crimes and violated probation terms | Foster: (through counsel) no meritorious appellate issues; implicitly challenges sufficiency of evidence | Court: Affirmed—preponderance standard met; at least one violation proved |
| Whether counsel properly sought to withdraw under Anders/Rule 4-3(k)(1) | State: N/A (procedural) | Counsel: Requested leave to withdraw, arguing appeal wholly without merit and complied with Rule 4-3(k)(1) | Court: Granted withdrawal—brief complied and issues frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and permits withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Richardson v. State, 157 S.W.3d 536 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (proof of a single probation violation is sufficient to support revocation)