Broderick Podolak v. State of Arkansas

── Broderick Podolak v. State of Arkansas ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General 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, Podola