Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 358
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-13-1034
ERIK HEIGELMANN Opinion Delivered June 4, 2014
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE MILLER
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 46CR-07-352]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE KIRK JOHNSON,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
On July 31, 2007, Erik Heigelmann pled guilty to the underlying offense of theft of
property and was placed on probation for a period of three years. He was also ordered to pay
fines, costs, and restitution totaling $2,357 at the rate of $150 a month. By order entered
September 22, 2008, the term of his probation was extended for twenty-four months and
additional costs were assessed (based upon him pleading true to a December 6, 2007 petition
to revoke for failure to follow the terms and conditions of his probation).
On September 1, 2009, a second petition to revoke was filed by the State, alleging that
Heigelmann had failed to report to his probation officer, failed to pay the supervision fees, and
failed to pay the court-ordered financial obligations. On August 15, 2013, following a
hearing, the trial court granted the State’s petition to revoke Heigelmann’s probation, and this
appeal followed.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 358
Heigelmann’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw as counsel
pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k)(1) (2013), and Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). Heigelmann was given an opportunity to file pro se points but has not done so.
In filing a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 4-3(k) and Anders, counsel must address all adverse
rulings and explain why none of them provides a meritorious ground for reversal.
Counsel has noted the following adverse rulings: the denial of Heigelmann’s motion
for continuance on the day of the revocation hearing; the overruling of Heigelmann’s
objection to testimony concerning his incarceration; the overruling of Heigelmann’s objection
to a rebuttal witness concerning the investigation that led to his arrest for aggravated robbery;
the denial of Heigelmann’s motion to dismiss; and the granting of the State’s petition to
revoke his probation. In addressing these adverse rulings, counsel has adequately explained
why none of them provides a meritorious ground for reversal.
Our review of the record and brief confirms that counsel has complied with Rule 4-
3(k) and that an appeal in this case would be wholly without merit. We therefore affirm the
revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
GRUBER and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Phillip A. McGough, P.A., by: Phillip A. McGough, for appellant.
No response.
2