Hooten v. State
2014 Ark. App. 21
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Alan L. Hooten pled guilty in 1997 to a Class C felony under the Arkansas Hot Check Law; he was fined $50, costs $150, and restitution $4,248.62 in $100 installments, with a suspended sentence conditioned on compliance.
- In 2010, the State filed a petition to revoke the suspended sentence for failure to pay the imposed amounts; a 2012 hearing followed.
- The trial court revoked the suspension and sentenced Hooten to two years in the Arkansas Department of Correction, with an additional eight-year suspended term.
- Counsel for Hooten filed an Anders v. California motion to withdraw, accompanied by an abstract, addendum, and brief arguing the appeal is wholly meritless.
- The Court of Appeals denied the motion to withdraw without prejudice, and ordered a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum due to deficiencies in the initial filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Rule 4-3(k). | Hooten's counsel substantially complied; withdrawal should be granted. | Counsel failed to meet Rule 4-3(k) requirements in multiple respects. | Denial without prejudice; substituted abstract/brief required. |
| Whether the brief adequately argued the sufficiency of the evidence to support revocation. | The record supports revocation under the standard of review. | The brief merely states the standard and outcome without analyzing the evidence. | Not properly addressed in the current filing; remand for proper briefing. |
| Whether the sentencing scheme (mixing probation and a suspended sentence) was legally infirm. | No issue raised on appeal beyond asserted revocation. | There is authority suggesting mixing probation with a suspended sentence can be problematic. | Not decided; noted as a potential issue for consideration on remand. |
| Whether the delay in revocation petition and the apparent expiration of the suspension affect validity. | Delay raised procedural concerns; may impact validity. | The issue was not adequately developed in the brief. | Not resolved; suggested for further briefing on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Culpepper v. State, 268 Ark. 263, 595 S.W.2d 220 (1980) (prohibition on awarding both probation and suspended sentence for the same offense)
- Sisk v. State, 81 Ark. App. 276, 101 S.W.3d 248 (2003) (caselaw on combining probation with a suspended sentence)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1987) (procedural framework for counsel filing an Anders brief)