Case Information
*1 Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 14 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-16-69
TRIVA COBLE Opinion Delivered January 18, 2017 APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 26CR-13-72-1]
HONORABLE JOHN HOMER STATE OF ARKANSAS WRIGHT, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge
Triva Lynn Coble appeals a Garland County Circuit Court order revoking her probation and sentencing her to eighteen years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellate counsel has filed a motion with this court to be relieved as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2016). The motion is accompanied by a no-merit brief containing an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below. The abstract and addendum in counsel’s brief include all objections and motions decided adversely to appellant, and counsel explains in the argument portion of his brief why there is nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal. The clerk of this court provided appellant with a copy of counsel’s brief and motion and notified appellant of her right to file pro se points for reversal. Appellant has filed pro se points for reversal, and
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 14 the State has filed a response. We affirm appellant’s revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
A request to be relieved as counsel on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit shall be accompanied by a brief including an abstract and addendum. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1). The brief shall contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the trial court with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Id. In furtherance of the goal of protecting constitutional rights, it is both the duty of counsel and of this court to perform a full examination of the proceedings as a whole to decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Campbell v. State , 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001).
From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, including consideration of appellant’s pro se points for reversal, which are either not preserved for appeal or do not otherwise support reversal, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and that there is no merit to an appeal. Therefore, we affirm, by memorandum opinion, appellant’s revocation. See In re Memorandum Opinions , 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
G LOVER and B ROWN , JJ., agree.
Paul J. Teufel , for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge , Att’y Gen., by: Rachel Kemp , Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 2