Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 388
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-16-672
ARTHUR VERN MACLEOD III Opinion Delivered: June 21, 2017
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE JOHNSON
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 36CR-15-71]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE WILLIAM M.
PEARSON, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Arthur Vern Macleod III appeals from the revocation of his probation and related
sentence of five years’ imprisonment and five years’ suspended imposition of sentence.
Macleod’s attorney has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) (2016), along with a motion to withdraw as counsel,
asserting that there is no issue of arguable merit for an appeal. Our court’s clerk mailed a
certified copy of counsel’s motion and brief to Macleod pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-
3(k)(2), informing him of his right to file pro se points for reversal. Macleod has not done
so, and the State has not filed a brief. We grant the motion to withdraw and affirm.
In 2015, Macleod pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault in the second degree
and was sentenced to 120 months’ probation. He certified that he had read and understood
his probation’s terms. The State filed the operative paper in this case, its second amended
petition for revocation, in April 2016. The State argues that Macleod violated his
probation’s terms by failing to register as a sex offender, testing positive for amphetamines,
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 388
failing to report, testing positive for alcohol, and failing to pay fines and fees that he owed.
After a hearing in May 2016, the court found that Macleod had violated the conditions of
his probation. The court sentenced him to five years in the Arkansas Department of
Correction and five years’ imposition of suspended sentence on each count of sexual assault.
The test for filing a no-merit brief is not whether there is any reversible error, but
whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Tucker v. State, 47 Ark. App. 96, 885 S.W.2d
904 (1994). Here, counsel has adequately explained why an appeal would be wholly
frivolous. Macleod’s probation conditions prohibited him from using alcohol and required
him to register and report as a sex offender. The State produced witnesses who testified
that Macleod had failed to register as a sex offender in a timely manner, that he had failed
to appear for two scheduled risk assessments, and that he had tested positive for alcohol
while on probation. The circuit court expressly ruled that it did not credit Macleod’s
testimony about being confused and making an honest mistake. Only one inexcusable
violation is necessary to revoke a defendant’s probation. Ingram v. State, 2009 Ark. App.
729, 363 S.W.3d 6. There were no adverse rulings apart from the court’s revocation of
Macleod’s probation.
Based on our review of the record for potential error pursuant to Anders and Rule
4-3(k), we hold that Macleod’s appeal is wholly without merit. We therefore grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw and affirm the court’s revocation.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
VAUGHT and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Dusti Standridge, for appellant.
No response.
2