T.S. v. State
2017 Ark. App. 578
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On September 23, 2015, the State petitioned to adjudicate T.S., a juvenile, delinquent for first-degree criminal mischief based on vandalism to Samuel Warren’s vehicle on August 6, 2015.
- Warren and Deundra Brown witnessed three people damage the car and identified T.S. as one of them; Warren testified T.S. held a hammer and later messaged T.S. on Facebook about the vandalism.
- A neighbor corroborated that three people vandalized the vehicle; police confirmed the damage.
- T.S. and family members testified she was at home “on punishment” all day and denied involvement; T.S. acknowledged telling Warren to “stop harassing me” in response to his Facebook message.
- The trial court found the eyewitnesses credible, discredited T.S. and her witnesses, and adjudicated T.S. delinquent; defense counsel filed an Anders/no-merit brief and moved to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree criminal mischief | State: eyewitness IDs, corroboration, and damage establish purposeful destruction | T.S.: alibi that she was at home "on punishment" and lack of corroborating testimony | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports adjudication; court credited witnesses and rejected alibi |
| Adverse evidentiary rulings (three objections) | State: objections were proper | T.S.: trial court erred in excluding/admitting certain evidence (as listed in no-merit brief) | Affirmed: circuit court did not abuse its discretion in the three evidentiary rulings |
| Adequacy of counsel’s Anders/no-merit brief and motion to withdraw | State: counsel complied with Anders and Ark. R. 4-3(k) | T.S.: (no pro se points filed) | Granted: appellate court found brief adequate and permitted counsel to be relieved |
| Whether appeal is wholly frivolous | Appellant (via counsel): identified adverse rulings but argued none provide meritorious grounds for reversal | Appellee: appeal lacks merit | Held: appeal is frivolous under Anders; adjudication affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes counsel’s duties and procedure when asserting appeal is frivolous)
- Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363 (Ark. Ct. App.) (discusses application of Anders and review duties in no-merit juvenile appeals)
- C.H. v. State, 51 Ark. App. 153 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard for sufficiency-of-evidence review in juvenile delinquency cases)