Heath v. State
2016 Ark. App. 499
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- LaShawn Heath’s suspended imposition of sentence for residential burglary was revoked and the circuit court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment on January 30, 2015.
- The appeal has been before the Arkansas Court of Appeals multiple times; the court ordered rebriefing in two prior opinions (Heath I and Heath II) because of briefing deficiencies.
- Appellate counsel filed a no-merit (Anders-style) brief asserting no meritorious grounds for appeal and moved to withdraw under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1).
- Counsel identified two adverse trial rulings: (1) overruling Heath’s objection that Detective Jennifer Sherrill’s testimony about reading a probation officer’s incident report was hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause; and (2) denial of Heath’s motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence at the revocation hearing.
- The State’s evidence included victim testimony that the home had been broken into through a door opening toward the garage and finding a bicycle in the backyard, and Heath’s statement to Detective Sherrill that the "door was too tough" when he tried to enter to find money for cigarettes.
- The Court of Appeals concluded counsel complied with Anders and Rule 4-3(k)(1) (despite a continued miscitation of the rule), granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the revocation order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility: testimony about probation officer’s incident report (hearsay) | State: testimony not offered for truth but to explain why detective questioned Heath | Heath: testimony was hearsay and violated Confrontation Clause | Overruled — hearsay rule inapplicable in revocation proceedings; report contents not introduced, so no Confrontation violation |
| Sufficiency of evidence for revocation (motion to dismiss) | State: proved by preponderance that Heath committed/attempted burglary (victim testimony + Heath’s statement) | Heath: evidence insufficient; objection not specific and raised at close of State’s case | Denied — revocation proper; preponderance standard satisfied; issue not preserved by a specific motion at appropriate time |
| Adequacy of counsel’s Anders/Rule 4-3(k)(1) brief and motion to withdraw | State: counsel complied with Anders and rule requirements in refiled brief | Heath: counsel previously failed to comply with briefing requirements (noted in prior remands) | Granted — current brief adequately explained why appeal lacked merit; withdrawal permitted (despite counsel’s continued miscitation of the rule) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel to identify nonfrivolous issues when seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Barbee v. State, 346 Ark. 185 (Ark. 2001) (Arkansas rule: insufficiency-motion preservation requirement does not apply to revocation hearings)
- Heath v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 47 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (prior remand for rebriefing)
- Heath v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 338 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (prior remand noting briefing deficiencies)