ERIC ROMAR STANLEY v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-22-462
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
February 15, 2023
Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 79
KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge
DIVISIONS III & IV
HONORABLE CARLTON D. JONES, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge
Appellant Eric Romar Stanley appeals after the Miller County Circuit Court revoked his probation and sentenced him to serve seventy-two months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction; assessed additional court costs and fees; and ordered him to pay all previously assessed fines, costs, and restitution upon his release.1 Appellant’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to
I. Relevant Facts
In this case, No. 46CR-19-331, appellant was charged by information with aggravated assault on a family or household member, a Class D felony, in violation of
Thereafter, the State filed another petition for revocation and two amended petitions for revocation. In the most recent amended petition filed on May 13, 2022, the State alleged that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation as set forth in the
Officer Teresa Atkins, appellant’s current probation officer, testified that appellant had violated the terms of his probation in that he had failed to pay his court-ordered financial obligations and had violated Arkansas state law. Copies of the terms and conditions of appellant’s probation signed by appellant were admitted into evidence. Officer Atkins explained that appellant owed a balance of $2,450 in case No. 46CR-19-331 and $2,175 in companion case No. 46CR-20-421. Certified copies of the ledgers from the circuit court clerk’s office reflecting those amounts were also admitted into evidence. Officer Atkins further explained that appellant had been arrested for criminal trespass and possession of a controlled substance. She additionally offered that appellant had a positive drug test in January 2022.
Appellant testified on his own behalf. Appellant explained that he had been taking online college courses, working, and helping to take care of his grandmother before his most recent arrest. He admitted that he understood he had some court-ordered financial obligations. When asked why he had not been paying those obligations, he responded, “Actually I was getting around to it.” He went on to explain that he did not have a good support system but was at least paying his supervision fees.
Appellant testified that on the day he was arrested, he had nowhere to go because he had been kicked out of his grandmother’s home. He stated that because it was cold outside, he bought ecstasy pills and took them so he would not “freeze to death.” Appellant explained that he went to his girlfriend’s apartment to pick up some clothes—even though he had been previously banned from the apartment—and that his girlfriend called law enforcement after he arrived. He admitted that he had been “yelling back and forth” with his girlfriend and that he told law enforcement that he had “X pills” in his right sock. He further admitted that he had also been using ecstasy pills to self-medicate and treat his mental-health conditions, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and “real strong
After all the evidence had been presented, the circuit court orally stated that it was revoking appellant’s probation on the basis of the testimony of the State’s witnesses and appellant’s admission that he had violated Arkansas state law. The circuit court sentenced appellant to serve seventy-two months’ imprisonment; assessed additional court costs and fees; and ordered appellant to pay all previously assessed fines, costs, and restitution upon his release. This appeal followed.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Revocation
Appellant’s counsel argues that the only adverse ruling was the revocation.2 Therefore, we address whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation. A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence may be raised for the first time in an appeal of a revocation in the absence of a motion for a directed verdict or motion to dismiss. See Barbee v. State, 346 Ark. 185, 56 S.W.3d 370 (2001). In a revocation proceeding, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his or her suspension or probation, and on appellate review, we do not reverse the circuit court’s decision unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Flemons v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 131;
Appellant’s counsel alleges that there would be no merit to an appeal from the revocation, and we agree. Here, the undisputed testimony was that appellant possessed a controlled substance—specifically, ecstasy pills—in violation of state law. Appellant even admitted that he was self-medicating and treating his mental-health issues with ecstasy pills. Therefore, we hold that there would be no merit to an appeal of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation.
III. Conclusion
Thus, from our review of the record and the brief presented, we find that counsel has complied with the requirements of Rule 4-3 and hold that any appeal would be wholly without merit. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and appellant’s conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
ABRAMSON, KLAPPENBACH, and BROWN, JJ., agree.
HARRISON, C.J., and VIRDEN, J., dissent.
I dissent from the decision to grant counsel’s motion to withdraw for the same reasons I dissented today in Stanley v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 86, as this record presents the same nonfrivolous illegal-sentence issues.
VIRDEN, J., joins.
Phillip A. McGough, P.A., by: Phillip A. McGough, for appellant.
One brief only.