Harmon v. State
2015 Ark. App. 18
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Harmon pled guilty (July 17, 2011) to possession with intent to deliver and received 36 months’ probation plus financial obligations and probation conditions.
- State filed petition to revoke probation (Nov. 5, 2013) alleging failure to pay fines/costs/fees, failure to report to probation, failure to notify sheriff of address/employment, and leaving approved residence.
- At revocation hearing, the court admitted a ledger showing Harmon owed $2,165 and testimony that he made no payments; the State proceeded on nonpayment and failure-to-notify allegations after dismissal of other counts.
- Harmon testified he earned $9/hr as a cook after his assessment, earned $13,800 in 2013, lived with his mother, acknowledged awareness of obligations, and claimed inability to pay due to living expenses and child support.
- The trial court found Harmon inexcusably failed to report and to pay financial obligations, revoked probation, and sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment with a 36-month suspended imposition of sentence.
- On appeal, counsel filed an Anders/no-merit brief per Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1); court affirmed revocation and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported revocation for nonpayment of court-ordered amounts | State: Ledger and testimony show Harmon made no payments; burden shifts to Harmon to excuse nonpayment | Harmon: Claimed inability to pay due to living expenses and child support; requested opportunity to pay | Affirmed: Trial court credited State; Harmon’s earnings and living situation supported conclusion that failure to pay was inexcusable |
| Whether failure to report to probation justified revocation | State: Proof Harmon failed to report as required | Harmon: Did not rebut reporting allegation at hearing | Affirmed: Trial court’s finding that Harmon failed to report was not against the preponderance of evidence |
| Whether counsel’s Anders/no‑merit brief and motion to withdraw complied with rules | State/Court: Counsel followed Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) and Anders procedures | Harmon: (no pro se points raised) | Granted: Court found no meritorious issue and allowed counsel to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (permitting counsel to file a no‑merit brief and seek withdrawal when appeal lacks arguable merit)