ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-13-257
TIMOTHY ALLEN FIVEASH Opinion Delivered February 19, 2014
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BOONE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. CR2012-149-4]
HONORABLE ROBERT
STATE OF ARKANSAS McCORKINDALE, II, JUDGE
APPELLEE MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED;
REBRIEFING ORDERED
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge
Timothy Allen Fiveash appeals from his Boone County Circuit Court convictions for
driving on a suspended license, careless or prohibited driving, failure to wear a seat belt, no
license tags, no proof of liability insurance, and obstruction of government operation.1
Counsel for Fiveash has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant
to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) on the ground that an appeal would be wholly
without merit. Because counsel has failed to abstract and address a hearsay objection made
at trial, we must order rebriefing.
1
These charges were tried together with a first-offense DWI charge and a careless-andprohibited-driving charge stemming from a separate incident. Fiveash was also convicted on
those charges. An appeal of those convictions is pending in companion case, Fiveash v. State,
Appellate counsel has filed a brief with this court stating that no evidentiary objections
were made at trial. However, our independent review of the record reveals that defense
counsel made an objection on hearsay grounds to testimony elicited by the State from
Trooper Billy Martin of the Arkansas State Police. The State argued that the testimony was
not being introduced for the truth of the matter asserted and, therefore, did not constitute
hearsay. The trial court overruled the objection. Counsel has failed to abstract this adverse
ruling or explain why it has no merit.
Our Rule 4-3(k), which is based on Anders v. California,
(1967), sets
forth the framework for constitutionally permissible no-merit briefs. In order to satisfy Rule
4-3(k) and the framework set forth in Anders, counsel is required to file an abstract and
addendum of the proceedings below, including all objections and motions decided adversely
to appellant, and a brief in which counsel explains why there is nothing in the record that
would support an appeal. A no-merit brief that fails to address an adverse ruling does not
satisfy the requirements of Rule 4-3(k)(1) and must be rebriefed. Sartin v. State,
.
Because counsel has failed to properly abstract and address all adverse rulings as
required under our rules, we order counsel to cure the deficiency by filing a substituted brief,
abstract, and addendum within fifteen days from the date of this opinion. Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-2(b)(3) (2013). The deficiency we have noted is not to be taken as an exhaustive list. We
encourage counsel, prior to filing a substituted brief, to examine Rules 4-2 and 4-3 to ensure
2
Cite as
