Broderick Podolak v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 331
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-25-397

BRODERICK PODOLAK Opinion Delivered May 20, 2026

APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE SALINE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 63CR-14-37]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BRENT DILLON
APPELLEE HOUSTON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED

CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge

Appellant Broderick Podolak appeals after the Saline County Circuit Court revoked

his probation on a charge of possession of methamphetamine and imposed a three-year

sentence of imprisonment in a regional correctional facility. Podolak’s counsel has filed a

motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(b)(1), asserting that an appeal would be wholly frivolous.1

In order to satisfy Rule 4-3(b)(1) and the framework set forth in Anders, counsel is

required to file a brief in which counsel sets forth all objections and motions decided

adversely to appellant and explains why there is nothing in the record that would support an

1
The clerk of this court mailed a copy of counsel’s motion and brief to Podolak’s last-
known address informing him of his right to file pro se points for reversal, but he has not
done so.
appeal. We previously ordered rebriefing because counsel failed to adequately explain how

the circuit court had jurisdiction to revoke Podolak’s probation after his probationary period

had expired or why the circuit court’s rejection of Podolak’s request for a lesser sentence was

proper. Podolak v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 18. Counsel has now filed another no-merit brief

correcting those deficiencies.

Podolak was charged in January 2014 with one count of possession of

methamphetamine, a Class D felony, that carried a possible sentence of between zero and

six years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. On September 2, 2014, he pled no contest to

that charge in exchange for a recommended sentence of three years’ probation, a $100 fine,

and $570 in costs and fees. The State also agreed to not pursue a failure-to-appear charge

associated with the case. The no-contest plea statement was signed by Podolak.

The sentencing order was filed September 11.2 It reflected the three-year probationary

sentence and the imposition of a fine and costs. The conditions of probation form—signed

by Podolak on September 2 and signed by the court on September 9—provided, in part, that

Podolak would not commit a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment; would not use

or possess any controlled substance; would not associate with any persons convicted of a

felony or engaged in criminal activity; would report to his supervising officer as directed;

2
The sentencing order incorrectly states that Podolak entered a negotiated plea of
guilty rather than a plea of nolo contendere.

2
would inform his supervising officer of any change in address; and would pay $20 each

month for his fine, fees, and costs as well as an additional $35 monthly supervision fee.

Approximately three weeks later, on September 26, the State filed a petition seeking

to revoke Podolak’s probation for failing to report for his September 4 probation intake and

failing to make any contact with his probation officer since pleading no contest on

September 2. A bench warrant was issued for Podolak’s arrest that same day.

Almost ten years later, on August 24, 2024, Podolak was served with the bench

warrant. On September 11, the State amended its revocation petition, alleging that Podolak

had violated five conditions of his probation by (1) committing a criminal offense (possession

of a controlled substance) in Missouri; (2) associating with a known absconder; (3) failing to

report for his probation intake; (4) failing to provide a valid address; and (5) failing to make

any payments on his fine, fees, or court costs.

Podolak failed to appear for his plea and arraignment on November 4, and another

bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He was served with the warrant on January 4, 2025,

and was given a $25,000 bond. The bond was reduced to $15,000 at a bond hearing on

January 23.

A revocation hearing was held on February 21. At the beginning of the hearing, the

parties discussed the possibility of a plea. Defense counsel acknowledged that Podolak had

violated the conditions of his probation, and on questioning by the court, Podolak himself

admitted he had committed violations of his probation. However, when the State recited the

3
alleged violations, Podolak challenged one of them. As a result, the court determined that

testimony should be taken instead.

Terry Zadavil, Podolak’s probation officer, supplied the court with a written copy of

the conditions of probation, which Podolak had initialed and signed, indicating that he

understood the conditions imposed. He testified that Podolak had absconded after

sentencing and was later arrested in August 2024. During his absence, Podolak had been

arrested, charged, and placed on probation in Missouri on drug charges.3 Officer Zadavil

testified that, even after his arrest in August, Podolak remained inconsistent in his reporting

and that he had tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. Zadavil noted that

Podolak had also missed a scheduled November 2024 court date and did not report again

until his subsequent arrest in January 2025. Finally, he testified that Podolak had not made

any attempt to pay his court-ordered financial obligations and had a balance of $1650

remaining.

Podolak then testified on his own behalf. He testified that he had not been convicted

of any felony before his plea in September 2014. At the time of his plea, he thought that he

was pleading to a misdemeanor charge; that he had been offered six months’ probation in

exchange for his plea; and that the charge would be expunged if he remained trouble-free

during those six months. He claimed the judge, however, changed the charge to a felony,

sentenced him to three years’ probation, and imposed $2500 in fines. He testified that he

3
Zadavil testified that Podolak had also absconded in the Missouri case and had been
charged with failure to appear in that case as well.

4
absconded because he had not agreed to plead guilty to a felony because his employer would

not employ a felon.

Podolak then stated that, after he was arrested on the outstanding warrant in

September 2024, he reported two to three times. He stated that he missed court because he

had been hospitalized for congestive heart failure and was given six months to live. He

admitted that he tested positive for methamphetamine but claimed that the drug was the

“only thing that kept [him] going.” He then asked for clemency stating that he would comply

with probation for as long as he had left and that he would pay his fines with his retirement

money.

After hearing the testimony, the court found that Podolak had violated the terms of

his probation. The court stated that it did not believe Podolak’s claim that he had not been

fully apprised of the nature of his plea when he entered it and that the conditions of his

probation clearly stated why he was on probation and the things he was required to do. The

State recommended three years in the Arkansas Division of Correction; the defense

requested 120 days, less time served, followed by probation. The court found that probation

was not appropriate given Podolak’s lack of compliance and sentenced him to three years in

a regional correctional facility. A sentencing order reflecting this sentence was entered on

February 24.

Because this is a no-merit appeal, Rule 4-3(b) requires the argument section of the

brief to contain “a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court on all

objections, motions[,] and requests . . . with an explanation as to why each . . . is not a

5
meritorious ground for reversal.” The requirement for briefing every adverse ruling ensures

that the due-process concerns in Anders are met and prevents the unnecessary risk of a

deficient Anders brief resulting in an incorrect decision on counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Harvey v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 283, 646 S.W.3d 292. Pursuant to Anders, we are required to

determine whether the case is wholly frivolous after a full examination of all the proceedings.

Id.

Podolak’s counsel has submitted a substituted brief addressing the following adverse

rulings: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation of Podolak’s probation;

and (2) the circuit court’s denial of his request for a lesser sentence.

The first adverse ruling identified by counsel was the revocation itself. Counsel has

adequately addressed this issue, noting that Podolak, by his own admission, had absconded

from probation and had provided no reason for his failure to pay his court-ordered financial

obligations—both clear violations of his probation. A circuit court may revoke a defendant’s

probation at any time before the expiration of the probationary period if it finds by a

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a

condition of his probation.4 Yarberry v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 265. The State has the burden

of proving a condition of probation has been violated, and proof of only one violation must

4
Podolak absconded shortly after his probationary period began. The State filed a
revocation petition, and a bench warrant was issued on September 26, 2014, well within his
probationary period. Because a warrant had been issued for Podolak’s arrest before the
expiration of the probationary period, the circuit court had jurisdiction to revoke his
probation. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(f)(2) (Supp. 2021); Heathman v. State, 2023 Ark.
App. 40, 660 S.W.3d 370; Carter v. State, 350 Ark. 229, 85 S.W.3d 914 (2002).

6
be shown to sustain a revocation. Id. Because Podolak admitted he had violated the

conditions of his probation, there was sufficient evidence upon which the court could revoke

his probation.

The other adverse ruling addressed by counsel was the circuit court’s denial of

Podolak’s request for a lesser sentence. In a revocation proceeding, the circuit court has

discretion in the sentence imposed and is authorized to impose any sentence that could have

been imposed originally. Richmond v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 408. Here, Podolak was sentenced

within the statutory guidelines. Possession of a controlled substance is a Class D felony. Ark.

Code Ann. § 5-64-419(b)(1)(A) (Repl. 2024). The maximum sentence for a Class D felony

shall not exceed six years. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(5) (Repl. 2024). Upon revocation,

the circuit court sentenced Podolak to a term of three years’ incarceration, which does not

exceed the statutory maximum. Thus, no meritorious argument could be made that the

circuit court abused its discretion in not sentencing appellant to a lesser sentence.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

VIRDEN and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.

Nobles Law Firm, PLLC, by: Ethan C. Nobles, for appellant.

One brief only.

7