Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 6
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-13-221
Opinion Delivered January 8, 2014
BOBBY EARL SORRELL APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2008-351]
V.
HONORABLE RANDY F.
STATE OF ARKANSAS PHILHOURS, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
In August 2008, Bobby Sorrell pleaded guilty to the sale or delivery of a controlled
substance, and he was placed on ten years’ probation. In March 2010, the State filed a
petition to revoke Sorrell’s probation. The petition alleged that Sorrell failed to pay fines
and fees, failed to notify the sheriff of his current address and employment, and that he
violated the law by committing the criminal offenses of aggravated assault and possession
of a firearm by a felon. After a hearing, the circuit court entered an order revoking
Sorrell’s probation and sentencing him to thirty years in the Arkansas Department of
Correction.
As permitted by Rule 4-3 of the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court and Court
of Appeals and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Sorrell’s attorney has filed a no-
merit brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel. Sorrell received a copy of his counsel’s
brief and filed pro se points for reversal. In his pro se points Sorrell argues that the State
1
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 6
failed to present sufficient evidence to revoke his probation, that the court gave him an
“excessive” prison sentence, and that he suffered from ineffective assistance of counsel
during the hearing. The State has responded and explained why Sorrell’s points would
not, in its view, support reversal. Our review of the record shows no adverse rulings in
this case except the court’s decision to revoke Sorrell’s probation.
At the revocation hearing, Fannie Thomas, Sorrell’s neighbor, testified that she and
another woman named Joyce were arguing outside Fannie’s house when Sorrell
brandished a handgun and told them to stop the noise. Joyce’s fiancé, Mike, intervened
and tried to remove Sorrell from the scene. Darrell, Fannie’s husband, ushered their
children away from the argument. But things escalated and Sorrell ended up firing
multiple shots from his gun toward Fannie and Darrell’s house; multiple bullets struck the
house and damaged it. During the shooting, Darrell told his three daughters to lie down
on the floor inside the house to avoid being injured by the bullets. No one was injured,
but Fannie testified that Sorrell put serious fear in her, her husband, and her children.
Fannie and Darrell identified Sorrell as the shooter.
West Memphis Police Officer Jonathan Hollowell testified that he found five bullet
holes in Fannie and Darrell’s home and five .40 caliber shell casings in the street. Darrell
testified that Sorrell used a 9mm semi-automatic pistol during the shooting. The main
point here is that the circuit court heard testimony that Sorrell brandished and fired a
semi-automatic pistol and that the .40 caliber shell casings could have been fired from the
style of gun Sorrell used.
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 6
The State only has to prove that Sorrell violated one condition of his probation to
support a revocation. Cheshire v. State, 80 Ark. App. 327, 95 S.W.3d 820 (2003). Among
other things, Sorrell’s probationary terms prohibited him from committing any new
crimes. The commission of aggravated assault was one of the grounds on which the State
sought to revoke Sorrell’s probation and on which the court did so. A person commits
aggravated assault if, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of
human life, he purposely engages in conduct that creates a substantial danger of death or
serious physical injury to another person. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-204(a)(1) (Supp. 2011).
Anders requires us to make a determination of whether an appeal is wholly frivolous
after a full examination of the record. Baker v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 480. Counsel’s brief
adequately explains why it would be meritless to argue that the State failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that Sorrell committed an aggravated assault and thus why
an appeal on that ground would be frivolous. We agree that the preponderance of the
evidence supports the court’s revocation of Sorrell’s probation and that any insufficient-
evidence argument would be meritless.
This brings us to Sorrell’s pro se points. He mentions the length of his sentence,
but the thirty-year prison sentence the court imposed is legal. Cox v. State, 365 Ark. 358,
229 S.W.3d 883 (2006). And Sorrell’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is not
preserved for this direct appeal. Ratchford v. State, 357 Ark. 27, 159 S.W.3d 304 (2004).
Sorrell is not without a remedy; he may challenge the effectiveness of his counsel under
Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Baker, supra.
3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 6
The circuit court’s decision to revoke Sorrell’s probation is affirmed, and we grant
his counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
GRUBER and WOOD, JJ., agree.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
We note that counsel cited the wrong subsection of the rule in his motion to
1
withdraw. The applicable rule is Rule 4-3(k), not Rule 4-3(j).
4