Willis v. State

I concur in the decision to deny appellant’s petition for rehearing. I write for the limited purpose of responding to that part of appellant’s petition in which he argues that his probation was erroneously revoked because he was improperly charged with having violated a “non-existent statue [sic].” Specifically, appellant argues that he was charged with having violated Ark. Code Ann. § 5-26-303 (a) (4), which appellant contends did not exist because subsequent legislation had re-enacted section 5-26-303 without any mention of the contents of subsection (a)(4). Compare Acts 1317 and 1365 of…