ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-16-1003
Opinion Delivered June 21, 2017
T.S. APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 52JV-15-152]
V. HONORABLE EDWIN KEATON,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION
APPELLEE TO WITHDRAW DENIED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge
The State filed a petition alleging that T.S., a minor, should be adjudged a juvenile
delinquent for committing first-degree criminal mischief. After a bench trial, the Ouachita
County Circuit Court adjudicated T.S. delinquent. Pursuant to Anders v. California,
(1967), and Rule 4-3(k) (2016) of the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals, counsel for T.S. has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel and a brief stating that
the adverse rulings in the record provide no meritorious grounds for an appeal. We order
rebriefing and deny the motion to withdraw as counsel.
The argument section of a no-merit brief “consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the
defendant made by the circuit court on all objections, motions and requests made by either
party with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for
reversal.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) (2016). The rule requires that the abstract and addendum
Cite as
T.S.’s counsel’s brief lists three evidentiary objections made by the State that were
sustained by the circuit court, 1 and counsel argues that these adverse rulings would not provide
a nonfrivolous ground for reversal. The first objection is abstracted: “Objection by State:
Leading Question. Sustained.” The second objection is abstracted: “Objection by defense
related to statement by State not relevant to case.” The third objection is abstracted:
“Objection by State arguing speculation. Sustained.” The abstracting of these objections is
incomplete and lacks context, making it extremely difficult to determine what testimony was
objectionable, the scope of the objection raised at trial, and whether there is a meritorious
ground for appeal. Because counsel’s abstract is in violation of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) and
4-3(k)(1), we order rebriefing on this point.
The only other adverse ruling in this case was the circuit court’s delinquency finding.
Counsel’s brief fails to address this adverse ruling and explain why there is no merit to an
appeal of the finding. 2 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,
.
Therefore, we order rebriefing and direct counsel to cure the deficiencies under Rule
4-3(k)(1) by filing a substituted abstract and brief within fifteen days from the date of this
1Counsel’s abstract lists a fourth evidentiary objection made by the defense; however,
because the circuit court did not rule on this objection, it is not an adverse ruling.
2The argument section of T.S.’s counsel’s brief stops midsentence in the middle of the
page.
2
Cite as
opinion. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). The deficiencies we have noted are not to be taken as an
exhaustive list. We encourage counsel, prior to filing a substituted abstract and brief, to
examine Rules 4-2 and 4-3 to ensure that she has complied with our rules and that no
additional deficiencies are present. Wells v. State,
2012 Ark. App. 151
, at 3.
Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.
HARRISON and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Ebony Gulley, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.
No response.
3
