Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 484 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-26-36 Opinion Delivered October 7, 2026 RODREX HILL APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 63CR-23-647] V. HONORABLE JOSH FARMER, JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW STATE OF ARKANSAS GRANTED APPELLEE WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Rodrex Hill was found guilty and sentenced by a Saline County Circuit Court jury to five years in the Arkansas Division of Correction (ADC) for fleeing and three years in the ADC for failure to appear. Pursuant to Anders v. California1 and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4–3(b)(1),2 Hill’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief stating there are no meritorious grounds to support an appeal. In accordance with Rule 4-3(b)(2), the clerk of this court mailed a certified copy of counsel’s motion and brief to Hill informing him of his right to file pro se points for reversal; he elected to do so after this court granted his motion to file belated pro se points. From our review of the record, the brief, and the pro se points presented, we find that counsel’s brief is in 1 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 (2021). compliance with the directives of Anders and the requirements of Rule 4–3 and that there are no issues of arguable merit to support an appeal. Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. On October 19, 2023, Hill was charged by criminal information with fleeing in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-54-125. The State filed an amended information on October 30 adding the offense of failure to appear in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-54-120. Another amended information was filed on July 16, 2025, adding a habitual-offender enhancement. A jury trial was held on July 22. Officer Matthew Kuntz with the Benton Police Department testified that at approximately 4:40 a.m. on the morning of July 29, 2023, he attempted to conduct a traffic stop on a suspicious vehicle after he ran the license plate and it came back as “unconfirmed insurance.” Officer Kuntz initiated his emergency lights and followed the vehicle, yet the driver continued driving on the service road, bypassing multiple areas to stop, and reaching speeds of up to eighty-four miles an hour. Sergeant Stracner with the Bryant Police Department joined the pursuit. The vehicle then merged onto the interstate, weaved in and out of traffic, and reached speeds of up to ninety-nine miles an hour. The driver lost control of the vehicle and crashed into trees. Officer Kuntz testified that when he approached the vehicle, the driver’s door was open, and the vehicle was unoccupied. Officers attempted to locate the driver by conducting a foot and proximity search of the area and a canine search but were unsuccessful. A cell phone was located on the driver’s floorboard, and a wallet was found on the ground by the open driver’s door. Hill’s driver’s license was inside the wallet; his license was determined to be suspended. A purse containing identifying documents belonging to Keena Reed was found at the scene. Officer Kuntz’s dash-cam footage was played for the jury and introduced into evidence. 2 Sergeant Chris Benham with the Benton Police Department testified that he investigated the fleeing incident. He contacted Keena Reed, the registered owner of the vehicle, and determined that she is Hill’s sister. Sergeant Benham testified that Hill admitted over the phone that he was the driver of the vehicle and that he fled because he did not have a valid driver’s license. Hill agreed to turn himself in and was booked at the Saline County jail. Sergeant Benham returned the two cell phones and wallet recovered from the accident scene to Hill; Hill admitted that he owned the items. Keena Reed testified next. She stated that Hill is her brother. Reed was not driving the vehicle at the time of the crash; she had given it to Hill. Hill told her that he was robbed and encouraged her to report the vehicle stolen, but she did not do so. Reed stated that, to her knowledge, Hill was the only person driving the vehicle. Saline County District Court Clerk Leah Moone testified that a pretrial release order signed by Hill was issued on September 12, 2023, requiring him to appear in court on October 24 at 1:00 p.m. The October 24 district court docket sheet noted that Hill failed to appear on that date. A failure-to-appear warrant was issued as a result. The State rested, and Hill moved for a directed verdict. The circuit court denied the motion. Hill testified in his own defense. He acknowledged that the vehicle involved in the fleeing incident belonged to him. He received it from his sister as a birthday gift. Hill stated that on the night of the incident, he and an acquaintance went to his ex-girlfriend’s house in Benton to retrieve his belongings. Hill did not recall the name of the acquaintance but stated that he goes by “X” and is from the Little Rock area. When Hill got out of the vehicle to collect his items, the individual drove off in Hill’s vehicle. Hill stated that he saw the police attempt a traffic stop on the vehicle near the gas station not far from the ex-girlfriend’s home. The next day, Hill’s sister informed him that she 3 had received a phone call from the police stating that the vehicle was involved in an accident, and they were looking for him. Hill stated that he called Sergeant Benham and told him that he was “about to turn [himself] in.” He denied that he was the driver who fled from police and wrecked the vehicle. Hill testified that he was going to turn himself in because police were looking for him, and he wanted to clear up the matter; he did not think he was going to jail. Hill stated that when he presented himself at the jail, Sergeant Benham met him outside, returned his wallet and cell phone, and walked him into the jail and booked him. Hill additionally denied failing to appear for a scheduled court date. He testified that it was his understanding that he did not have to appear in court at that time “because the case was not officially filed.” On cross-examination, Hill verified that his signature was on the release conditions he received at his bond hearing, and the document looked “familiar,” but he did not remember signing it. The signed document instructed Hill to appear in court on October 24. An audio recording of a phone call Hill made from jail on August 2 was played in court. In the call, Hill stated, “I don’t know what the fuck I was thinking.” He also stated, “I’m in a bigger hole. I went ahead and told the truth. They had my wallet and my phone. So they were going to figure it out. And they also would’ve seen us texting seconds before the incident.” During the recorded phone call, Hill also said that he received court dates for the failures to appear. Hill testified that he did not tell Sergeant Benham that he fled because he had a suspended driver’s license and warrants. After the defense rested, Hill renewed his directed-verdict motions, which were again denied. Following the jury trial, Hill was convicted of the charges and was sentenced as a habitual offender to seven years for fleeing and three years for failure to appear, with the sentences to be 4 served consecutively. A sentencing order was entered on July 23, 2025. This no-merit appeal followed. In considering a no-merit brief, we must determine whether, after a full examination of the proceedings, there is any nonfrivolous basis for an appeal. 3 The test is not whether there is any reversible error but whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous.4 Counsel’s brief must contain a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court on all objections, motions, and requests made by either party with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.5 Here, we are satisfied that there are no adverse rulings that provide meritorious grounds for appeal. Counsel first addressed the denial of Hill’s motions for a directed verdict. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence arising from a motion for directed verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict.6 We will affirm a judgment of conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it.7 Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture. 8 3 Bohanon v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 22, 594 S.W.3d 92. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Kelley v. State, 103 Ark. App. 110, 286 S.W.3d 746 (2008). 7 Id. 8 Id. 5 If a person knows that his or her immediate arrest or detention is being attempted by a duly authorized law enforcement officer, it is the lawful duty of the person to refrain from fleeing, either on foot or by means of any vehicle or conveyance.9 Fleeing by means of any vehicle or conveyance is considered a Class C felony if, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, a person purposely operates the vehicle or conveyance in such a manner that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person.10 Officer Kuntz testified that after he attempted to conduct a traffic stop, the driver evaded police by driving at a high rate of speed, weaving in and out of traffic, losing control of the vehicle, and crashing into a tree. Although the driver escaped on foot, Hill’s wallet and cell phone were located at the scene of the accident. Evidence was presented that Hill admitted to Sergeant Benham that he fled because he had a suspended driver’s license. Additionally, in a recorded jail phone call, Hill said, “I don’t know what the fuck I was thinking.” Substantial evidence supports Hill’s fleeing conviction. A person commits the offense of failure to appear if he or she fails to appear without reasonable excuse subsequent to having been lawfully set at liberty upon condition that he or she appear at a specified time, place, and court.11 Failure to appear is a Class C felony if the required appearance was in regard to a pending charge or disposition of a felony charge either before or after a determination of guilt of the felony charge. 12 9 Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-125(a) (Supp. 2023). 10 Id. § 5-54-125(d)(3). 11 Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-120(b)(2) (Supp. 2023). 12 Id. § 5-54-120(c)(1). 6 Testimony and evidence were presented that Hill signed a pretrial release ordering him to appear in court on October 24. Hill did not dispute that he was not in court on that date. Although he denied signing the order to appear, he admitted that the signature on the document appeared to be his. A jury is not required to believe a defendant’s self-serving testimony.13 The trier of fact is free to believe all or part of a witness’s testimony.14 We will not reweigh the evidence or the jury’s credibility determination.15 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, as our standard of review requires, substantial evidence supports Hill’s failure-to-appear conviction. Counsel next identified the jury’s finding of guilt on the charges as another adverse ruling. However, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions was addressed in relation to the circuit court’s denial of Hill’s directed-verdict motions. Counsel also identified Hill’s sentence—specifically, the imposition of consecutive terms of incarceration for the convictions—as an adverse ruling. It is well settled that only the specific objections and requests made at trial will be considered on appeal.16 A circuit court’s decision to impose sentences consecutively is entirely within the court’s discretion, and a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve the issue for appeal. 17 Here, Hill did not lodge an objection to the sentence. On a challenge to consecutive sentencing, our supreme court has refused to recognize a 13 Brooks v. State, 2016 Ark. 305, 498 S.W.3d 292. 14 Id. 15 See Harmon v. State, 340 Ark. 18, 8 S.W.3d 472 (2000). 16 Bickham v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 536, 725 S.W.3d 79. 17 Brown v. State, 326 Ark. 56, 931 S.W.2d 80 (1996). 7 Wicks18 exception to the contemporaneous-objection requirement.19 Therefore, there is no meritorious argument to be made concerning Hill’s sentence. Last, counsel noted that there were three objections made by the State during the trial. The State made two hearsay objections and one objection to relevance. Counsel correctly stated that these objections are not adverse rulings because the circuit court neither sustained nor overruled the objections. Instead, following each objection by the State, Hill offered to “clarify” or “redirect” the testimony. Counsel has adequately explained why these objections are not adverse and provide no meritorious point for appeal. Hill’s pro se filing is not organized into points for reversal but instead is a recitation of his version of the events leading up to his arrest and the evidence adduced at trial. He appears to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for fleeing and failing to appear. He recounts the testimony and evidence presented at trial and attempts to discredit it with allegations of prejudice, deceit, and manipulation on behalf of the State, his counsel, and witnesses. The same analysis applies to Hill’s sufficiency argument as discussed above. Further, to the extent that Hill’s claims may be construed as assertions of constitutional violations and allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, we note that he did not raise such claims at trial. Thus, these arguments are not preserved for our review.20 Accordingly, Hill’s pro se points provide no basis for a meritorious appeal. 18 Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980). 19 Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53, 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002). 20 Skaggs v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 325, 670 S.W.3d 811. 8 Having examined the entire record, we hold that counsel has complied with Anders and Rule 4–3(b) and that there is no merit to an appeal. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. HARRISON and BARRETT, JJ., agree. Ingle Law Firm, by: Matthew R. Ingle, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 9