Griffin v. State
2017 Ark. App. 400
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Mark Douglas Griffin was arrested after allegedly shoplifting at Wal‑Mart on June 9, 2015; store video and asset‑protection testimony showed him concealing merchandise (estimated ~$300) and becoming physically aggressive when confronted.
- Griffin was charged with robbery (Class B felony), theft of property less than $1,000 (Class A misdemeanor), interference with emergency communication in the second degree (Class B misdemeanor), and habitual offender allegations; bond was set at $75,000.
- The trial court denied four pretrial motions to reduce bond. A bench trial was held on June 24, 2016.
- Witnesses (asset‑protection associates and an officer) testified to Griffin’s taking items, attempting to flee, pushing an associate, and being apprehended; Griffin’s wife testified about his prior traumatic brain injury and memory/balance issues.
- The trial court found Griffin guilty on the three counts and sentenced him to a total of 180 months in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
- Appellate counsel filed a no‑merit (Anders/Rule 4‑3(k)) brief seeking to withdraw; Griffin received notice and did not file pro se points. The Court of Appeals granted withdrawal and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions | State: evidence (video, eyewitness testimony, officer testimony) supports convictions for robbery, theft, and interference | Griffin: (did not preserve a sufficiency challenge at trial) — attempted to argue factual deficits on appeal but failed to move for dismissal at close of evidence | Waived—Griffin failed to move for dismissal under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b); a sufficiency challenge is not preserved and any such appeal is without merit |
| Denial of four pretrial bond‑reduction motions | Griffin sought bond reductions before trial | State opposed; trial court denied each reduction | Moot and without merit on appeal because convictions were affirmed; appellate court will not decide moot bond rulings |
| Counsel’s motion to withdraw under Anders/Rule 4‑3(k) | Appellate counsel contended the appeal is wholly without merit and complied with procedural requirements for withdrawal | Griffin did not file pro se points after being notified | Granted—court found counsel complied with the rule and that there were no meritorious appellate issues; withdrawal granted and convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grube v. State, 2010 Ark. 171, 368 S.W.3d 58 (preservation requirement for sufficiency challenges at bench trial)
- McCall v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 300, 495 S.W.3d 91 (Rule 33.1(b) motion requirement to preserve sufficiency arguments)
- Davis v. State, 350 Ark. 22, 86 S.W.3d 872 (appellate courts do not decide moot issues)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedural framework for no‑merit counsel withdrawal)