Michael Dakota Hood v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2019 Ark. App. 328
Digitally signed by Elizabeth
Perry
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Date: 2022.07.21 12:21:33
DIVISION IV
-05'00' No. CR-18-818
Adobe Acrobat version:
2022.001.20169 Opinion Delivered: June 5, 2019
MICHAEL DAKOTA HOOD

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NOS. 04CR-16-1603, 04CR-17-40,
04CR-17-882 & 04CR-18-463 ]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE BRAD KARREN,
JUDGE

APPELLEE APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED

MEREDITH B. SWITZER, Judge

Michael Hood appeals from the May 23, 2018 sentencing order involving four cases

in which he pleaded guilty: case numbers 04CR-16-1603, 04CR-2017-40, 04CR-17-882,

and 04CR-18-463. His counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the

Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, asserting that an appeal in this matter would

be wholly without merit. The motion and brief comply with the rules for no-merit appeals.

The court clerk sent a copy of counsel’s motion and brief to Hood at his last-known address

and informed him of his right to file points for reversal. He declined to do so. We dismiss

the appeal and grant the motion to withdraw.
In February 2017, Hood pleaded guilty to two drug-related offenses. 1 He was

sentenced in part to three years of supervised probation. The State filed a petition to revoke

Hood’s probation on May 18, 2017, and amended it on April 12, 2018, alleging violations

of the terms and conditions of his probation, including the commission of additional

offenses. In a hearing on April 16, 2018, Hood pleaded guilty to three new charges 2 and

pleaded guilty to the allegations supporting the petition to revoke.

Hood has no right to an appeal from a sentence based on his guilty pleas. Ark. R.

App. P.–Crim. 1(a) (2018); Burns v. State, 2017 Ark. 280, 528 S.W.3d 269; Cummins v.

State, 2013 Ark. App. 657 (no direct appeal from a plea of guilty). Although there are

exceptions to this rule, 3 none of the exceptions apply in this case. Therefore, we grant the

motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed; motion to withdraw granted.

GLADWIN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

David Law Firm, PLLC, by: Jason R. Davis, for appellant.

One brief only.

1
Case number 04CR-16-1603 (possession of drug paraphernalia) and case number
2017-40-2 (possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine)).
2
Case number 04CR-17-882 (possession of drug paraphernalia and failure to appear
for felony offense) and case number 04CR-18-463 (possession of drug paraphernalia).

3
“There are three exceptions: (1) when a conditional plea of guilty is premised on
an appeal of the denial of a suppression motion pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal
Procedure 24.3; (2) when there is a challenge to testimony or evidence presented before a
jury in a sentencing hearing separate from the plea itself; and (3) when the appeal is from a
posttrial motion challenging the validity and legality of the sentence itself.” Starks v. State,
2019 Ark. App. 182, at 2–3, 574 S.W.3d 700, 702.
2