BOLDEN v. STATE (2026)

Terry Bolden appeals the Crittenden County Circuit Court's sentencing order revoking his probation and sentencing him to six years’ imprisonment (in case No. 18CR-21-231) and revoking his suspended sentence and sentencing him to a ten-year suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) (in case No. 18CR-23-420). Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b) (2025) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Bolden's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief stating that there are no meritorious grounds to support an appeal. The clerk of this court mailed a certified copy of counsel's motion and brief to Bolden, informing him of his right to file pro se points for reversal, but he has not done so. We affirm and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.

In March 2022, Bolden entered a plea of guilty in case No. 18CR-21-231 to second-degree battery, a Class D felony, for which he was sentenced to six years’ probation. In June 2023, he pled guilty in case No. 18CR-23-420 to possession of a firearm by certain persons, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to a seven-year SIS. On December 5, 2024, the State petitioned to revoke Bolden's probation and SIS, alleging that he was in violation of the terms of his probation in both cases for failing to pay fines, fees, and costs; failing to report; failing to notify probation of his current address and employment; and failing to live a law-abiding life, be of good behavior, and refrain from violating state, federal, and municipal laws.

After a hearing, the circuit court revoked Bolden's probation and SIS in an order entered on May 21, 2025, for violation of the conditions in each case, specifically stating that he failed to report and failed to pay fines, fees, and costs. The court sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment in case No. 18CR-21-231 and to a ten-year suspended imposition of sentence in case No. 18CR-23-420. Bolden's counsel filed this no-merit brief and motion to withdraw.

In a no-merit brief, counsel is required to list each ruling adverse to the defendant and explain why it does not present a meritorious ground for reversal. Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363, 365, 47 S.W.3d 918, 919 (2001). After a full examination of the proceedings, we are required to determine whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Tennant v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 403, at 2, 439 S.W.3d 61, 63. Bolden's counsel addressed the following adverse rulings in his brief, arguing that they do not present a meritorious basis for appeal.

The first adverse ruling identified by counsel is the denial of Bolden's motion for continuance made at the outset of the hearing. Counsel stated that Bolden wanted “to take the 90 days, continue it, and be released to that program in ADC.” Then Bolden added, “I want to take the drug test is all, so it will help my daughter's situation, that's all I'm asking.”¹ The court replied, “That's not what this is. That's off the table now․ I'm going to hear the case and then I may continue it from that point and make a finding.”

We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. Davis v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 502, at 3, 588 S.W.3d 790, 793. In order to warrant reversal, an appellant must both demonstrate that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the continuance and show prejudice from the denial of the continuance that amounts to a denial of justice. Id., 588 S.W.3d at 793.

As counsel points out in her brief, the circuit court did not act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration in denying Bolden's motion for a continuance. First, Bolden waited until the start of the revocation hearing to move for a continuance. Second, his stated reason was to attempt to comply with the case plan in a different court in a dependency-neglect matter unrelated to the revocation proceedings. Third, the circuit court stated that it would proceed with the hearing to determine whether a continuance was warranted. The court heard from multiple witnesses, considered all the evidence, and then found that Bolden had been provided multiple opportunities to comply with the conditions of his probation and suspension because it had been “revoked on at least three occasions,” yet he “made absolutely no effort” to comply with the conditions of his probation and SIS. Therefore, we agree that the denial of Bolden's eleventh-hour motion for continuance was not an abuse of discretion offering Bolden a meritorious ground for reversal.

Bolden's counsel next addresses an objection to hearsay, which the court overruled stating, “It's a revocation.” The challenged statement concerned testimony about Bolden's alleged violation of the probation conditions by pointing a gun at and threatening someone. Counsel first points out that the statement was not necessary to prove the State's case against Bolden because the court revoked Bolden's probation for failure to report and for failure to pay fines, not for violating the law. Moreover, to the court's presumed point in overruling Bolden's hearsay objection, the rules of evidence do not apply in revocation hearings. See Ark. R. Evid. 1101(b)(3); Holliman v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 390, at 4, 676 S.W.3d 281, 283. Even if they did, a circuit court enjoys broad discretion in ruling on evidentiary objections. Goldsmith v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 77, at 4, 660 S.W.3d 858, 861. And we do not reverse a circuit court's evidentiary errors absent a showing of prejudice. Lawson v. State, 2024 Ark. 143, at 4, 697 S.W.3d 529, 531 (affirming when error was harmless). We hold that there is no merit to an appeal of this adverse ruling.

Counsel also addresses the revocation itself. To revoke probation, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his or her probation. Green v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 174, at 4. The State need only prove one violation. Peals v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 1, at 4, 453 S.W.3d 151, 154. Here, Jennifer Miller, the probation officer assigned by the Division of Community Corrections to supervise Bolden, testified that she had been supervising Bolden for three years—since he was placed on probation in May 2022—and he had never reported. She said that she was walking down the street with a fellow probation officer on April 28, 2023, when the fellow officer saw Bolden and called out his name. Miller, who had never met Bolden, said she introduced herself to Bolden and told him he needed to report to her. He failed to do so.

Patricia Joplin testified that she had been employed by the Crittenden County Sheriff's Department for fourteen years to collect fees, fines, and restitution from defendants. She said that Bolden owed $790 in fines in case No. 18CR-21-231 and $790 in case No. 18CR-23-420. She said there were payment plans pursuant to which Bolden was ordered to pay $25 a month beginning in July 2022 in case No. 18CR-21-231 and $25 a month beginning in July 2023 in case No. 18CR-23-420. She said that she had never received a payment from Bolden for either case.

Bolden testified that he did not understand that he had to “show up” anywhere or report. He admitted that he did sign the conditions of probation, which required that he do so, but he said that he never spoke to anyone about reporting. He admitted meeting Miller in the street and said that she advised him to report to her, but he testified that he did not know her and so he just “blew it off” because it had been “so long then.” Bolden also testified that he was employed and that he had signed the conditions requiring him to pay fines, fees, and costs. In light of this evidence, we hold that there would be no merit to an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocations.

Finally, counsel addresses the circuit court's denial of Bolden's request that the court place him in a rehabilitation center. As explained by counsel, there could be no meritorious argument raised in an appeal of this adverse ruling. Sentencing is entirely a matter of statute, and the circuit court has the authority to impose a particular sentence when it complies with the applicable statute. Fulks v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 566, at 5, 680 S.W.3d 743, 746. The circuit court sentenced Bolden to six years’ imprisonment in case No. 18CR-21-231, a Class D felony, and to a ten-year suspended imposition of sentence in case No. 18CR-23-420, a Class B felony, both within the applicable statutory range. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(3), (5) (Repl. 2024) (Class D felony carries a maximum sentence of six years; Class B felony carries a maximum sentence of twenty years). Whether to allow alternative sentencing is a discretionary decision for the circuit court, which we review for an abuse of discretion. Ward v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 342, at 3. Here, the circuit court remarked that Bolden had exemplified “everything that's wrong with probation” because the State had filed and dismissed several petitions for revocation, yet he had continued to waste those opportunities and continue to violate the conditions of his probation. On this record, we agree with counsel that no meritorious argument could be raised on appeal regarding the rejection of Bolden's request that he be placed in a rehabilitation center.

From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find counsel has complied with Rule 4-3(b) and hold that the appeal would be without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the order of revocation.

Affirmed; motion granted.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Bolden's daughter was in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Human Services due in part to the substance-abuse issues of Bolden and the child's mother.

WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge

Klappenbach, C.J., and Tucker, J., agree.