A no-merit brief in a criminal case that fails to address an adverse ruling does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 4-3(b)(1), and rebriefing is required. Pettigrew v. State, 2019 Ark.App. 336; Liddell v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 172; Swarthout v. State, 2012 Ark.App. 46.
Pettigrew v. State, 2019 Ark.App. 336. This court has held that denials of requests for sentences of probation, requests for transfer to drug court or veterans-treatment court, and requests that sentencing be deferred to a later date are all adverse rulings that must be addressed. See Marshall v. State, 2021 Ark.App. 283; Liddell v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 172; Swarthout v. State, 2012 Ark.App. 46. We direct counsel to cure the deficiency by filing a substituted brief that complies with the rules within fifteen days of the date of this opinion.
This court has held that denials of requests for specific dispositions, such as an additional sentence of probation, transfer to drug court or veterans-treatment court, and requests that sentencing be deferred to a later date are all adverse rulings that must be addressed. See Moore v. State, 2022 Ark.App. 5; Marshall v. State, 2021 Ark.App. 283; Liddell v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 172; Swarthout v. State, 2012 Ark.App. 46.
This court has held that denials of requests for sentences of probation, requests for transfer to drug court or veterans treatment court, and requests that sentencing be deferred to a later date are all adverse rulings that must be addressed. See id.; Liddell v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 172; Swarthout v. State, 2012 Ark.App. 46.
This court has held that denials of requests for sentences of probation, requests for transfer to drug court or veterans treatment court, and requests that sentencing be deferred to a later date are all adverse rulings that must be addressed. See id.; Liddell v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 172; Swarthout v. State, 2012 Ark.App. 46. Accordingly, we order counsel to cure the deficiencies by filing a substituted brief within fifteen days from the date of this opinion.
The failure to grant a request for an alternative sanction is an adverse ruling that must be addressed in a no-merit brief. See, e.g., Swarthout v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 46 (counsel failed to abstract or address the circuit court's denial of defendant's request for a transfer to Veterans Treatment Court or for probation). Our supreme court has held that when counsel fails to address every adverse ruling, rebriefing must be ordered.
We have held that a circuit court's sentence of imprisonment despite a request for reinstatement of probation is an adverse ruling that must be addressed. See id.; see also Liddell v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 172 (counsel failed to address adverse ruling that occurred when the circuit court pronounced the sentence in contravention of defendant's request that probation be left intact or that sentencing be deferred to a later date); Swarthout v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 46 (counsel failed to abstract or address the circuit court's denial of defendant's request for a transfer to veteran's treatment court or for probation). Here, counsel addresses only the decision to revoke Hampton's probation.
We have held that a circuit court's sentence of imprisonment despite a request for reinstatement of probation is an adverse ruling that must be addressed. See id.; see also Liddell v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 172 (counsel failed to address adverse ruling that occurred when the circuit court pronounced the sentence in contravention of defendant's request that probation be left intact or that sentencing be deferred to a later date); Swarthout v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 46 (counsel failed to abstract or address the circuit court's denial of defendant's request for a transfer to veteran's treatment court or for probation). Accordingly, we order counsel to cure the deficiencies by filing a substituted brief within fifteen days from the date of this opinion.
This case comes before us for a second time. In Swarthout v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 46, we ordered counsel to cure deficiencies in his original no-merit brief. Appellant's attorney has now corrected those deficiencies and, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, has once again filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit.