Bryan Tanksley v. State of Arkansas
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
Date FiledMay 20, 2026
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 321
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-25-643
Opinion Delivered May 20, 2026
BRYAN TANKSLEY APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 02CR-20-181]
V.
HONORABLE ROBERT B.
STATE OF ARKANSAS GIBSON III, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED;
REMANDED TO CORRECT
SENTENCING ORDER
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Bryan Tanksley appeals the revocation of his suspended imposition of sentence (SIS).
Tanksley’s attorney has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant
to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(b)(1) (2025) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that this appeal is wholly without merit. 1 The clerk of this court mailed a copy of counsel’s
motion and brief to Tanksley’s last-known address informing him of his right to file pro se
1
This is a companion case to two other cases: 02CR-20-140, a 2020 guilty plea to
possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia for which Tanksley
was serving six years’ imprisonment and two years’ SIS; and 02CR-24-58, a 2024 guilty
plea to possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia in which a
jury trial was held on sentencing, and the court sentenced Tanksley to a total of eighteen
years’ imprisonment. The circuit court held a combined revocation hearing for 02CR-20-
140 and this case, 02CR-20-181, and held a combined sentencing hearing in all three cases.
Tanksley has filed separate appeals, and today we hand down opinions in all three cases.
1
points for reversal, but he has not done so. We affirm the revocation and grant the motion
to withdraw but remand for correction of the sentencing order.
In a criminal information filed 13 August 2020, the State charged Tanksley with
possession of a controlled substance, Sched. I/II; possession of drug paraphernalia; and
possession of a controlled substance, Sched. VI (02CR-20-181). In September 2020,
Tanksley pled guilty to all three charges, and the court imposed an aggregate sentence of six
years’ imprisonment and two years’ SIS.
On 22 March 2024, the State charged Tanksley with committing possession of a
controlled substance (morphine) and possession of drug paraphernalia (02CR-24-58). On
2 April 2024, the State petitioned to revoke Tanksley’s suspended sentences in 02CR-20-
181 and 02CR-20-140 based on his commission of these new drug-related offenses.
At a hearing on 16 December 2024, the court received evidence regarding the
revocations. The evidence presented at the revocation hearing has been detailed in a
separate opinion also handed down today. See Tanksley v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 328, ___
S.W.3d ___ (CR-25-641). In addition, the court considered sentencing for the revocations
at a combined hearing for Tanksley’s sentencing in 02CR-24-58. The evidence presented
at that hearing is described in detail in Tanksley v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 322, ___ S.W.3d
___ (CR-25-644), also handed down today.
Because the facts, issues on appeal, and argument presented here are identical to those
presented in CR-25-641, which is also handed down today, it is unnecessary to restate them
here. From our review of the record and the brief presented, we hold that any appeal would
be wholly without merit. However, we note that there is a clerical error in the sentencing
2
order. Tanksley was charged as a habitual offender, and the original sentencing order reflects
he was sentenced as a habitual offender. But the sentencing order upon revocation checks
the habitual-offender box for only count one (possession of a controlled substance, Sched.
I/II) and not count two (possession of drug paraphernalia). The circuit court is free to
correct a clerical error to have the judgment speak the truth. Battles v. State, 2024 Ark. App.
198. Thus, we affirm Tanksley’s convictions but remand to the circuit court with
instructions to correct the sentencing order. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is
granted.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted; remanded to correct sentencing order.
BARRETT and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Denise D. McMillan, for appellant.
One brief only.
3