Opinion
CACR03-1319
Opinion Delivered January 11, 2006
Appeal from the Jefferson County Circuit Court, [CR-2002-765-2], Hon. Randall Williams, Circuit Judge, Motion Denied; Rebriefing Ordered.
A Jefferson County jury convicted appellant Eddie Lee Patrick of one count of terroristic threatening and one count of rape and sentenced him to a total of 480 months in prison. The appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a motion to be relieved as counsel accompanied by a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(j), stating that there is no merit to the appellant's appeal of his conviction. The appellant filed forty-one points pro se arguing for reversal of his conviction. The State addressed the appellant's pro se points and recommended that the appellant's convictions be affirmed. We conclude that counsel's no-merit brief is not in compliance with Anders and Rule 4-3(j), and order rebriefing.
A request to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit must be accompanied by a brief including an abstract. The brief should contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the trial 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. Skiver v. State, 330 Ark. 432, 954 S.W.2d 913 (1997).
Counsel has failed either to address each adverse ruling entirely or has failed to adequately explain why each of the adverse rulings cited is not a meritorious ground for reversal. The following are examples of this failure:
(1) He does not explain why his pre-trial, rape-shield motion was not meritorious;
(2) The objection to the appellant being shackled during the penalty phase of the trial is only superficially addressed in the brief without examination of either the pertinent requirements set forth in Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.4, or Arkansas case law involving the discretion to restrain a defendant;
(3) The denial of appellant's two motions for a directed verdict, in which appellant asserted that the State failed to meet the prima facie requirements for rape and terroristic threatening, are addressed by citing the standard of review without further discussion as to why they have no merit; and
(4) The ruling to sustain the State's objection to the leading of a defense witness is addressed with a conclusory statement that the appellant cannot show prejudical effect.
Upon review of counsel's no-merit brief, we note that one of the purposes of the requirement for the filing of a no-merit brief is to induce the appellate court to pursue all the more vigorously its own review because of the ready references not only to the record, but also to the legal authorities as furnished by counsel. Anders, supra. Counsel's no-merit brief contains an addendum with copies of cases and statutes in their entirety, apparently as an invitation for us to devise our own arguments to support the adverse rulings of the trial court. We do not believe that this is what the Anders court intended by "ready references" to legal authorities.
In a case where such a clearly inadequate no-merit brief has been filed, our only option is to direct counsel to rebrief the case according to the standards set forth in Anders, supra, and Rule 4-3(j). Because the no-merit brief in this case lacks a full discussion of each adverse ruling, we direct appellant's counsel to address each issue adversely decided to his client, and discuss whether each point has merit.
Motion denied. Rebriefing ordered.
HART and GLOVER, JJ., agree.