Calvin Hart v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 400
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-24-81

Opinion Delivered September 4, 2024
CALVIN HART
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE UNION COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 70CR-22-59]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE SPENCER G.
APPELLEE SINGLETON, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

This is a no-merit appeal following Calvin Hart’s convictions in the Union County

Circuit Court. Hart’s counsel filed a timely notice of appeal followed by a no-merit brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-

3(b) (2023), along with a motion to be relieved as counsel, asserting that there is no issue of

arguable merit on appeal. Under Anders, counsel seeking to withdraw from representation

must satisfy this court that he or she has thoroughly reviewed the record for appealable issues

and explain why any potential issue is frivolous for appellate purposes.

When counsel submits an Anders brief, this court’s review is twofold. We ask whether

counsel adequately fulfilled the requirements and whether an independent review of the

record presents any nonfrivolous issues. Walton v. State, 94 Ark. App. 229, 231, 228 S.W.3d
524, 526 (2006). The clerk of this court served Hart with a copy of his counsel’s brief and

notified him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal. He has not done so.

We affirm the revocation and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

I. Relevant Facts

On September 26, 2023, Hart was charged with simultaneous possession of drugs

and a firearm, Ark. Code Ann. section 5-74-106 (Repl. 2016); possession of

methamphetamine (more than two grams but less than ten) with purpose to deliver, Ark.

Code Ann. section 5-64-420 (Supp. 2021) (Supp. 2023); possession of a firearm by certain

persons, Ark. Code Ann. section 5-73-103 (Supp. 2023); possession of a Schedule I/II

controlled substance (oxycodone) with the purpose to deliver, Ark. Code Ann. section 5-64-

434 (Repl. 2016); possession of Schedule VI controlled substance (marijuana, more than

four ounces but less than twenty-five pounds) with purpose to deliver, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-

64-436 (Repl. 2016); maintaining a drug premises, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-402 (Repl. 2016);

and possession of drug paraphernalia, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-443 (Supp. 2023). Hart was

charged as a habitual offender with less than four felony convictions.

At the jury trial, the following evidence was adduced. On December 1, 2021, pursuant

to a search warrant, drug task force agents found marijuana, oxycodone, methamphetamine,

scales, baggies, several smoking devices with brown residue, a .38 revolver, ammunition, and

a drug ledger inside Hart’s home. An agent used a pill-identifying phone app to ascertain

that the pills were oxycodone, and the agents were trained to identify marijuana. Ashley

Malone, who previously had been charged with possession of methamphetamine and

2
paraphernalia in another county, was inside the home at the time of the seizure of evidence,

but there were no clothes or personal items of Malone’s inside the home. Several pieces of

mail bearing Hart’s name and the address being searched were found inside the home. The

suspected methamphetamine was seized and sent to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory

(ASCL). A sample of the white crystalline substance weighing 3.4696 grams (0.12 ounces)

was identified as methamphetamine. The leafy plant substance seized at the home had a net

weight of 448.9 grams (15.8 ounces) and was not identified by chemical analysis. Possession

of four ounces or more but less than twenty-five pounds by aggregate weight, including an

adulterant or diluent, is a Class C felony.

Hart’s counsel moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State had not established

that Hart possessed any controlled substances. Specifically, counsel argued that Ashley

Malone could have possessed the methamphetamine, and the State did not present evidence

that Hart had the purpose to deliver. Counsel further argued that the State did not establish

that Hart knowingly possessed a firearm, and the State did not prove that the firearm was

operational. Counsel contended that the field identification of the pills found inside Hart’s

residence through an app was insufficient to establish that the pills were oxycodone. Counsel

also argued that the field identification of the leafy green substance as marijuana was

insufficient to prove that it was marijuana. Regarding the charge of maintaining a drug

premises, counsel asserted that only one other person was inside the home, and there was

no evidence of multiple people entering and leaving the residence. Counsel argued that the

digital scale could not be connected to the controlled substances found inside the home

3
because the large amount of marijuana would take “days” to measure on the small scale, and

“there was a small amount of meth and . . . two pills.” The circuit court granted the motion

regarding the possession of oxycodone and denied the motion as to the other charges. The

defense called Hart’s son, Calvin Hart, Jr., who testified that as a truck driver, he is

prohibited from carrying a gun while he is working, and he left his gun at his father’s house

for safekeeping until he returned. Hart knew that his son had left the gun at his home.

During discussion of the jury instructions, counsel renewed the motion for a directed verdict,

which was again denied.

The jury found Hart guilty of simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms,

possession of methamphetamine,1 possession of marijuana with the purpose to deliver,

maintaining a drug premises, and possession of drug paraphernalia. After the initial verdict

was read, the State presented evidence of Hart’s former felony convictions, and the jury

returned a guilty verdict of possession of firearms by certain persons. Hart was sentenced to

one year for possession of firearms by certain persons and possession of drug paraphernalia;

three years’ imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana

with intent to deliver, and maintaining a drug premises; and ten years’ imprisonment for

simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, to be served concurrently.

Hart’s timely no-merit appeal is before us.

1
The jury did not find that the State proved Hart had the intent to deliver
methamphetamine.

4
II. Discussion

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Counsel has demonstrated there is no nonfrivolous argument that could serve as the

basis for an appeal regarding the sufficiency of the State’s evidence against Hart. In reviewing

a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court determines whether the verdict is

supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Kourakis v. State, 2015 Ark. App.

612, 474 S.W.3d 536. Substantial evidence is evidence that is forceful enough to compel a

conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. This court views the

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict; only evidence supporting the verdict will

be considered. Id.

1. Possession of controlled substance, methamphetamine

Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-419 provides that it is a Class C felony for a

person to possess methamphetamine weighing more than two grams but less than ten grams.

Counsel explains that the State presented evidence that the ASCL forensic chemist tested a

sample of the white crystalline substance found in Hart’s home and identified it as

methamphetamine with a net weight of 3.4696 grams; thus, we agree that an appeal based

on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Hart’s conviction for possession of a controlled

substance would be frivolous.

2. Possession of drug paraphernalia

Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-443 provides that a person is guilty of

possessing drug paraphernalia if

5
(a) A person who possesses drug paraphernalia with the purpose to use the drug
paraphernalia to inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a
controlled substance or to store, contain, conceal, or weigh a controlled substance in
violation of this chapter upon conviction is guilty of:

....

(2) A Class D felony if the:

(A) Controlled substance is methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, or cocaine; and

(B) Person has been previously convicted of a violation of this chapter.
Counsel contends there was testimony that a digital scale; over three grams of

methamphetamine; and several smoking devices, one containing brown residue indicating

methamphetamine use, were found in Hart’s home. Additionally, evidence of Hart’s former

conviction under this chapter was introduced into evidence. A person’s intent or state of

mind is rarely capable of proof by direct evidence and most often is inferred from the

circumstances of the crime. See Breshears v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 442, at 8, 675 S.W.3d 493,

498; Jenkins v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 45, 593 S.W.3d 51. A jury is not required to lay aside

common sense and may infer guilt from improbable explanations or incriminating conduct.

Id. Viewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the State, we agree with

counsel that the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Hart’s conviction for possession of

drug paraphernalia used to ingest methamphetamine does not present a meritorious ground

for appeal.

3. Possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with purpose to deliver

Possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance (marijuana) with the purpose to

deliver can be proved by evidence that (1) the person has the means to weigh and separate

6
the marijuana, (2) the person possesses a record indicating drug-related transactions, (3) the

marijuana is separated and packaged in a manner facilitating delivery, (4) the person

possesses a firearm that is in the immediate physical control of the person at the time of

possession, or (5) any other relevant and admissible evidence that contributes to the proof

of intent to deliver. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-436(a). Counsel correctly states that there was

evidence, including almost one pound of marijuana, a drug-sales ledger, scale, baggies, and a

nearby firearm, consistent with the requirements in section 5-64-436(a). We agree with

counsel that this issue does not present a meritorious ground for appeal.

4. Simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms

A person commits the offense of simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms if he

or she commits a felony drug violation while in possession of a firearm. Ark. Code Ann. §

5-74-106(a)(1) (Repl. 2016). Here, the State presented evidence that a firearm was found in

Hart’s home as well as more than four ounces and less than twenty-five pounds of marijuana,

a Class C felony; thus, counsel is correct that Hart’s conviction for simultaneous possession

of drugs and firearms does not present a meritorious ground for appeal.

5. Possession of firearms by certain persons

No person shall possess or own any firearm who has been convicted of a felony. Ark.

Code Ann. § 5-73-103(a)(1). Counsel correctly states that evidence of Hart’s former felony

convictions was entered without objection, and as stated above, the State presented evidence

that a firearm was found inside Hart’s home. We agree and hold that an appeal on this basis

would be frivolous.

7
6. Maintaining a drug premises

It is unlawful for any person “knowingly to keep or maintain any store, shop,

warehouse, dwelling, building, or other structure or place or premise that is resorted to by a

person for the purpose of using or obtaining a controlled substance in violation of this

chapter or that is used for keeping a controlled substance in violation of this chapter.” Ark.

Code Ann. § 5-64-402(a)(2) (Repl. 2016). Counsel adequately explains why this issue

presents no meritorious ground for appeal, citing the overwhelming evidence presented by

the State: felony amounts of methamphetamine and marijuana, a handgun and

ammunition, a scale and baggies used for weighing and packaging drugs, several devices for

smoking methamphetamine and marijuana, a second person inside the home at the time of

the search, and a ledger that was used to record drug sales.

Viewing the evidence in the most favorable light to the State and considering only

the evidence that supports the verdict, we hold that the circuit court did not err in finding

that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s decision to convict Hart of the above

charges. As such, there could be no meritorious ground for appeal regarding the sufficiency

of the evidence.

B. Adverse Rulings

Aside from his convictions, our review of the record reveals four rulings adverse to

Hart regarding the introduction of exhibits. Counsel has noted each adverse ruling and

adequately explained why none present a meritorious ground for appeal.

8
A circuit court’s decision to admit evidence will not be reversed absent a manifest

abuse of discretion. Gulley v. State, 2012 Ark. 368, 423 S.W.3d 569. The abuse-of-discretion

standard is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the circuit court’s decision

but requires that the circuit court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due

consideration. Further, this court will not reverse a circuit court’s decision absent a showing

of prejudice. Davis v. State, 350 Ark. 22, 86 S.W.3d 872 (2002).

1. Exhibits 2, 3, and 4

During a drug task force agent’s testimony, the State introduced exhibit 2, a

photograph of a mattress on the floor next to the front door of Hart’s house; and exhibit 3,

a photograph of the kitchen. Hart objected to both photographs as irrelevant and argued

that exhibit 3 was redundant. Later, Hart objected to State’s exhibit 4, a photograph of items

on the kitchen counter, as irrelevant. All three objections were overruled, and the

photographs were admitted. Counsel argues that all three photographs were relevant to the

charge of simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms because they depicted what

appeared to be drugs inside the home and served to inform the jury of essential elements of

the charge. Because the location of the drugs was relevant to the charge, the circuit court did

not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs, and their admission over Hart’s

objection does not present a ground for a meritorious appeal.

2. Exhibit 19

Counsel also correctly contends that the admission of exhibit 19 over Hart’s relevancy

objection does not present a meritorious ground for appeal. Counsel explains that the

9
photograph of the drawer containing ammunition was relevant because Hart was charged

with simultaneous possession of a firearm and drugs and possession of a firearm by certain

persons. The court’s admission of exhibit 19 does not present a nonfrivolous ground for

appeal.

3. Lay testimony

State’s exhibit 5 was introduced without objection; however, when the drug task force

agent was asked to testify regarding the images in the photograph, Hart objected to the

agent’s identification of marijuana. Hart argued that a layperson is not an expert qualified

to identify marijuana. The court allowed the State to lay a foundation for the agent’s

expertise and training regarding the identification of marijuana, which he did. Hart objected

again on the same basis, and the court allowed the agent to continue testifying over the

objection. Counsel correctly asserts that our supreme court has held that a layperson with

training and experience may testify regarding the identification of marijuana. See Terry v.

State, 2024 Ark. App. 130, 684 S.W.3d 653; Kellensworth v. State, 2021 Ark. 5, 614 S.W.3d

804.

C. Conclusion

When filing a no-merit brief, the test for counsel is not whether there is any reversible

error but whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. See Honey v. State, 2020 Ark. App.

496; Wright v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 300. Pursuant to Anders, we are required to fully examine

all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Williams v. State, 2021

Ark. App. 164. From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find

10
compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and conclude that there is no merit to an appeal; thus, we affirm

and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

WOOD and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Phillip A. McGough, P.A., by: Phillip A. McGough, for appellant.

One brief only.

11