NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

EDDIE POINDEXTER

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-1359

July 3, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-2001-1620]

HONORABLE DAVID B. BOGARD, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

At a bench trial, appellant, Eddie Poindexter, was found guilty of the crime of theft by receiving and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant's counsel seeks to withdraw as his counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-3(j)(1)(2002). Alleging that appellant's appeal is without merit, counsel submitted a brief and abstract that listed all rulings adverse to appellant and explained why each adverse ruling does not present a meritorious ground for reversal, as well as an abstract containing all the adverse rulings and other pertinent parts of the record. Although the appellant was furnished with a copy of counsel's brief and notified of his right to file pro se points for reversal within thirty days, appellant failed to file such points.

The only rulings adverse to appellant were the trial court's denial of his motions for

a directed verdict. Specifically, it was argued at trial that the State failed to prove that he committed the crime of theft by receiving because there was no evidence establishing that he received, retained, or disposed of the stolen vehicle. Appellant testified that the car was loaned to him by an acquaintance.

"A person commits the offense of theft by receiving if he receives, retains, or disposes of stolen property of another person, knowing that it was stolen or having good reason to believe it was stolen." Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(a) (Repl. 1997). Further, "[t]he unexplained possession or control by a person of recently stolen property or the acquisition by a person of property for a consideration known to be far below its reasonable value shall give rise to a presumption that he knows or believes that the property was stolen." Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(c) (Repl. 1997).

In a case also involving a stolen car, the Arkansas Supreme Court stated as follows:

Appellant took the stand to deny that he knew the car was stolen; he maintained that he borrowed it from someone, and therefore, he argues, there was no substantial evidence to sustain his conviction for theft by receiving. However, an accused's unexplained possession or control of recently stolen property is prima facie evidence of his guilt of theft by receiving. Lane v. State, 288 Ark. 175, 702 S.W.2d 806 (1986). In Core v. State, 265 Ark. 409, 578 S.W.2d 581 (1979), we wrote that the unexplained possession or control of recently stolen property gives rise to a presumption that an accused knows or believes that the property was stolen. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(c) (1987). Further, the reasonableness of the appellant's explanation was a matter for the jury to assess, and the jurors were free to accept such part of his testimony they believed and free to reject that part they thought to be false. In short, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for theft by receiving....

Hall v. State, 299 Ark. 209, 213-14, 772 S.W.2d 317, 320 (1989). Although the statute specifically refers to "unexplained possession or control" of stolen property, based on theholding of Hall, and because of the similar facts presented here, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction for theft by receiving.

Thus, after reviewing the record and counsel's brief and abstract, we agree that a meritorious claim does not exist to provide a ground for reversal on the rulings adverse to appellant. Therefore, the request of counsel for appellant to be relieved is granted, and appellant's conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Vaught and Roaf, JJ., agree.