 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Lemon v. State, CACR05-486,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Modification of probation pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-304(c) was affirmed because defendant failed to report to her probation officer. Because the state needed to prove only one violation of the conditions of her probation, the appellate court did not need to review the trial court's finding that defendant violated the no-contact order.
|
|||||
| Minniefield v. State, CACR04-1347,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Granting of State's petition for revocation of defendant's probation was supported by the preponderance of the evidence; defendant failed to pay his fees and fines and had not made restitution; he admitted to other crimes, drug use, and failing to report to probation officer. Counsel's motion under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j) was granted.
|
|||||
| Myers v. State, CACR 04-1299,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied attorney's motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders and Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j) on ground that defendant's appeal was wholly without merit where abstract showed that defendant objected to exhibits offered by State, which were photographs of deceased, but the attorney did not discuss trial court's decision overruling objections.
|
|||||
| Patrick v. State, CACR03-1319,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied an attorney's motion to be relieved as defendant's counsel because the attorney's no-merit brief was not in compliance with Anders and Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j); the attorney failed to either address each adverse ruling entirely or to adequately explain why each of adverse rulings cited was not meritorious ground for reversal.
|
|||||
| Perkins v. State, CACR04-169,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Pierce v. State, CACR 05-230,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Prichard v. State, CACR04-1296,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied attorney's motion to withdraw on ground that defendant's appeal of his conviction was without merit where attorney's brief failed to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j); although addendum contained motion to suppress, attorney provided no explanation in either abstract, argument, or addendum regarding disposition of motion.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, CACR04-666,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted appellant's attorney's motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j)(1) where any appeal of appellant's probation revocation would be wholly without merit. The court agreed with the attorney that appellant's positive drug-screen test for marijuana established that he violated condition of his probation.
|
|||||
| Turner v. State, CACR 05-95,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of probation was affirmed because of defendant's willful failure to report to his probation officer as directed and his cavalier attitude that he could report whenever he felt like it. The sentencing range for felony theft of property was 5 to 20 years (Ark. Code. Ann. § 5-4-401); the 15-year sentence fell within the sentencing range.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
