Cite as
2016 Ark. App. 347
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-15-229
Opinion Delivered June 22, 2016
KENYON TAYLOR
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. CR-2014-229-1]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JOHN HOMER
APPELLEE WRIGHT, JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION
TO WITHDRAW DENIED
CLIFF HOOFMAN, Judge
Appellant Kenyon Taylor appeals from his convictions for first-degree murder, first-
degree battery, and a firearm enhancement, for which he received an aggregate sentence of
fifty-five years’ imprisonment. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court, Taylor’s counsel has filed a motion
to be relieved as his attorney, alleging that this appeal is without merit. Counsel has also filed
a brief in which she contends that all adverse rulings have been abstracted and discussed. In
addition, Taylor has exercised his right to file pro se points for reversal. We deny counsel’s
motion to withdraw at this time and order rebriefing due to counsel’s failure to abstract and
discuss all adverse rulings in compliance with Rule 4-3(k).
In April 2014, Taylor was charged with one count of murder in the first degree in
connection with the death of Randy Shinkle on June 24, 2012. Taylor was also charged with
criminal attempt to commit murder in the first degree in connection with the shooting of
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 347
Juan Santiago, in addition to a felony firearm enhancement. The attempted-murder charge
was subsequently reduced to battery in the first degree. After a jury trial, Taylor was found
guilty of all charges and received consecutive sentences of forty years’ imprisonment for the
murder conviction, five years for the battery conviction, and ten years for the firearm
enhancement. The amended sentencing order was entered on October 2, 2014, and Taylor
filed a timely notice of appeal.
Asserting that there would be no merit to an appeal, Taylor’s counsel has filed a
motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief with this court in which she alleges that all adverse
rulings have been abstracted and discussed in accordance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule
4-3(k) (2015). Counsel asserts that the only rulings that were adverse to Taylor were the
denial of his directed-verdict motions and the denial of his objection to the jury instruction
on the firearm enhancement. However, our review of the record reveals that there were
additional adverse rulings that were either not abstracted or discussed by counsel, and we must
therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and order rebriefing.
In a criminal no-merit appeal, in order to comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule
4-3(k)(1) and Anders, supra, counsel is required to abstract each adverse ruling by the circuit
court and discuss why each particular ruling would not present a meritorious basis for reversal;
we must order rebriefing if counsel fails to do so. Sartin v. State,
2010 Ark. 16,
362 S.W.3d
877. In the present case, there were at least two objections by the State that were sustained
by the circuit court during cross-examination of witnesses for the prosecution, and counsel
has failed to abstract these rulings. In addition, there were numerous other adverse rulings
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 347
that are abstracted, but counsel fails to discuss why these rulings would not present a
meritorious issue for appeal. Furthermore, we note that counsel’s discussion of the two
adverse rulings that are mentioned in her brief is conclusory and inadequate, consisting only
of counsel’s bare assertions that “there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict
and the trial court’s sentencing,” that Taylor “has no arguable claim to raise” on appeal, and
that the circuit court “did not err in denying the Defense’s motion for directed verdict of
acquittal and denying the objection to the firearm enhancement.” This is clearly insufficient
to meet the requirements of Rule 4-3(k)(1). See, e.g., Weaver v. State,
2013 Ark. App. 310
(holding that it is counsel’s responsibility in a no-merit brief to set forth the evidence that
supports the verdict and to demonstrate to us how it is, in fact, sufficient to support the
verdict and why it provides no basis for a meritorious appeal).
Because the no-merit brief in this case is deficient, we order counsel to file a
substituted abstract, brief, and addendum within fifteen days from the date of this opinion.
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). The deficiencies noted above should not be taken as an
exhaustive list, and we encourage counsel to review the requirements contained in Rule 4-
3(k)(1) prior to filing a substituted brief. We express no opinion as to whether the
substituted appeal should address the merits or should be made pursuant to Rule 4-3(k)(1).
If a no-merit brief is filed, counsel’s motion and brief will be forwarded by the clerk to
Taylor so that, within thirty days, he will again have the opportunity to raise any points he
chooses in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(2). In either instance, the State shall be
afforded the opportunity to file a brief in response.
3
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 347
Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.
GLADWIN, C.J., and BROWN, J., agree.
E. J. Raynolds Law Firm, P.A., by: Emily J. Reynolds, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Ashley Argo Priest, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4
