ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-16-562
Opinion Delivered: June 21, 2017
GEORGE DEWAYNE GUTHRIE APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
EASTERN DISTRICT
V. [NO. 16LCR-15-18]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE JOHN N.
FOGLEMAN, JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION
TO WITHDRAW DENIED
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
Appellant George Dewayne Guthrie appeals from his convictions of residential
burglary and theft of property. Pursuant to Anders v. California,
(1967), and
Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court, Guthrie’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 he contends that all adverse rulings have been abstracted and
discussed. In addition, Guthrie 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 May 2015, Guthrie was charged with one count of breaking or entering and one
count of theft of property. An amended information was filed in December 2015 in which
Guthrie was charged with one count of residential burglary and one count of theft of
Cite as
property. He was charged as a habitual offender. After a jury trial, Guthrie was found guilty
of both charges. Guthrie received a sentence of thirty years in prison for the residential
burglary conviction and was assessed a fine of $2500, and he received a sentence of six
months in the county jail for the theft-of-property conviction. Guthrie filed a timely notice
of appeal.
Asserting that there would be no merit to an appeal, Guthrie’s counsel has filed a
motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief with this court in which he alleges that all adverse
rulings have been abstracted and discussed in accordance with Arkansas Supreme Court
Rule 4–3(k). Counsel noted several adverse rulings, including the denial of Guthrie’s motion
to suppress, the denial of his directed-verdict motion on the charges of residential burglary
and theft, the denial of Guthrie’s request for a mistrial, and the circuit court’s overruling his
objection to the State’s characterization of the defense’s argument concerning “occupiable
structure” during the State’s closing argument; however, our review of the record reveals
that there were additional adverse rulings that were either not abstracted or not 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
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,
. In the present case, there were at least two other rulings adverse to Guthrie.
The first instance is the circuit court’s denial of Guthrie’s request that the court administer
the sentence after the jury had found him guilty. The second instance is the circuit court’s
2
Cite as
denial of Guthrie’s request for an appeal bond. Counsel has failed to abstract these rulings
and has failed to discuss why these rulings would not present a meritorious issue for 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
brief 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 Guthrie 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.
Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.
WHITEAKER and MURPHY, JJ., agree.
Joseph C. Self, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Bailey Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3
