T.S. v. State
534 S.W.3d 160
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- On September 23, 2015 the State petitioned to adjudicate T.S., a juvenile, delinquent for first-degree criminal mischief for damaging Samuel Warren’s vehicle.
- Witnesses Warren and Deundra Brown identified T.S. as one of three people who flattened tires and smashed windows; Warren testified T.S. held a hammer and later sent T.S. a Facebook message about the vandalism.
- Thomas Melton corroborated seeing three individuals damage the car; police confirmed the vehicle was damaged.
- T.S., her mother, grandmother, and brother testified she was at home “on punishment” all day August 6 and therefore could not have participated; T.S. admitted she replied to Warren’s Facebook message telling him to stop harassing her.
- The circuit court found the State’s witnesses credible, disbelieved T.S. and her witnesses, and adjudicated T.S. delinquent; defense counsel filed an Anders/no‑merit brief and moved to be relieved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for first‑degree criminal mischief | State: eyewitness IDs, corroboration by neighbor and police damage report support adjudication | T.S.: alibi testimony that she was at home all day; denial of involvement | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports adjudication; court credited eyewitnesses and discredited alibi testimony |
| Adverse evidentiary rulings (three objections sustained) | State: objections were proper and preserved | T.S.: rulings could have prejudiced defense (brief identifies them but argues frivolous) | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion in sustaining objections |
| Credibility determinations | State: witnesses consistent, detailed, and known to each other | T.S.: family/alibi witnesses contradicted identification and placed her at home | Affirmed — court permissibly found State’s witnesses credible and defense witnesses not credible |
| Anders/no‑merit compliance and counsel’s motion to withdraw | N/A (procedural) — State: counsel complied with Anders rules | T.S.: did not file pro se points for reversal | Counsel complied with Anders/Ark. R. 4‑3(k); appeal is frivolous; motion to be relieved granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedural requirement for counsel to file brief and appellate court to examine record for frivolousness)
- Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363 (applying Anders/no‑merit procedure in Arkansas)
- C.H. v. State, 51 Ark. App. 153 (standard for sufficiency review in delinquency cases)