Opinion
No. CR-13-174
01-08-2014
DONALD D. EDWARDS APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
C. Brian Williams, for appellant. Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2008-1248]
HONORABLE JOHN N.
FOGLEMAN, JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION
TO WITHDRAW DENIED
ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge
Donald Edwards appeals from the revocation of his suspended imposition of sentence. His attorney has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw. Edwards has filed pro se points for reversal, and the State has filed a responsive brief.
In the appellant's brief, counsel identifies three rulings adverse to Edwards and asserts that the trial court "did not abuse its discretion," the trial court "did not commit error," and "the trial court's finding was correct." Counsel does not, however, cite Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), or Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals (2013). Counsel also fails to state the standard of review for Anders briefs. Our standard in determining whether to relieve an attorney from a non-meritorious appeal is not whether counsel thinks the trial court committed no reversible error, but rather whether the points to be raised on appeal would be "wholly frivolous." Anders, supra; Ofochebe v. State, 40 Ark. App. 92, 844 S.W.2d 373 (1992). This court has recently written the following in a case in which counsel submitted a noncompliant Anders brief:
In his motion, counsel cites Rule 4-3(j), rather than 4-3(k).
We once again direct counsel to thoroughly familiarize himself with the requirements of Rule 4-3(k)(1) and how a no-merit argument is to be presented on appeal. Further, we emphasize that, at a minimum, counsel "should both acquaint himself with the framework found in Anders for no-merit criminal briefs and include the Anders citation in his brief." Soto v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 619, at 2. Additionally, counsel shall cite and follow the appropriate standard of review relating to no-merit appeals.Hollins v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 695, at 2. Accordingly, counsel has fifteen days from the date of this opinion in which to file a substituted brief. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2013). We express no opinion as to whether the new appeal should be made pursuant to Rule 4-3(k)(1) or should be on meritorious grounds.
Any appeals received from counsel that fail to strictly comply with this mandate regarding no-merit briefs will be uniformly returned for rebriefing and the accompanying motion to withdraw as counsel will be denied.
Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.
HIXSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.