Parmer v. State
2017 Ark. App. 5
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Herbert Parmer pleaded no contest (Sept. 16, 2013) to delivery of methamphetamine and received 10 years’ probation with conditions.
- The State filed multiple petitions to revoke probation alleging repeated positive drug tests/admissions (May–Aug 2014; Oct 2015), failure to report, failure to complete a substance-abuse class, and supplying another person’s urine for testing (June 2015).
- At the January 19, 2016 revocation hearing, Parmer’s probation officer testified to multiple positive tests and the substituted urine incident; Parmer admitted drug use, supplying another’s urine, and asked for help/rehabilitation.
- The trial court found the revocation allegations true and sentenced Parmer to four years in the Department of Correction with a judicial transfer to the Regional Punishment Facility.
- Counsel filed an Anders no-merit brief seeking withdrawal; Parmer filed pro se claims (ineffective assistance, procedural complaints, sentencing fairness).
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record, found the revocation and sentence supported by the evidence and within statutory authority, affirmed, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parmer) | Defendant's Argument (State/Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke probation | Parmer argued errors and procedural complaints; generally contended counsel ineffective and evidence unreliable | State relied on officer testimony, Parmer’s admissions, and drug-test records showing multiple violations | Revocation upheld; preponderance of evidence supported violations |
| Admissibility of prior convictions | Implied objection that old convictions should not weigh heavily | State introduced certified copies of prior convictions for sentencing/reliability purposes and court may consider them | Court allowed Exhibit 2; evidence deemed relevant and admissible for court’s consideration |
| Sentence length on revocation | Parmer argued sentence excessive; noted 50% incarceration impact | State noted court may impose any original-authority sentence for the underlying offense; four years within Class C felony range | Sentence affirmed as within statutory maximum and nonprejudicial |
| Ineffective-assistance claim | Parmer claimed counsel failed to object timely, failed to prepare, and allowed misdemeanor evidence use | Counsel filed Anders brief asserting no meritorious appellate issues; record showed limited objections and admissions by Parmer | Court declined pro se claims for lack of developed argument; Anders review found appeal wholly frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure where counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- McCraney v. State, 360 S.W.3d 144 (Ark. 2010) (appellate briefs must present authority and argument to raise issues)
- Eads v. State, 47 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001) (Anders compliance and appellate review for frivolousness)
- Harmon v. State, 453 S.W.3d 172 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (probation revoked on preponderance standard)
- Hurst v. State, 453 S.W.3d 155 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (sentence within statutory range not prejudicial)