Beavers v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Beavers v. State

589 S.W.2d 573, 267 Ark. 154, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1594

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 19, 1979

DocketCR 79-159

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 589 S.W.2d 573 (Beavers v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beavers v. State, 589 S.W.2d 573, 267 Ark. 154, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1594 (Ark. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

George Rose Smith, Justice.

This is a no-merit appeal from a verdict and judgment sentencing Beavers, as an habitual offender, to two consecutive 50-year sentences for aggravated robbery and kidnaping. Counsel for the appellant and the Attorney General for the State find no merit in the appeal. Beavers has not availed himself of the opportunity to file a pro se brief. We have studied the case and agree that it should be affirmed for want of merit. We point out, however, two defects in the appellant’s abstract and brief. First, the testimony has been copied verbatim instead of being abstracted, as required by Rule 9. Smith v. Pond, 259 Ark. 564, 534 S.W. 2d 769 (1976); Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 239 Ark. 141, 387 S.W. 2d 605 (1965). Second, counsel has not presented the arguable points for reversal, as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel merely states, as a conclusion, that in his opinion there is nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal. The State, however, has supplied the deficiencies.

Affirmed.

Harris, C.J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

George Rose Smith, Justice.

This is a no-merit appeal from a verdict and judgment sentencing Beavers, as an habitual offender, to two consecutive 50-year sentences for aggravated robbery and kidnaping. Counsel for the appellant and the Attorney General for the State find no merit in the appeal. Beavers has not availed himself of the opportunity to file a pro se brief. We have studied the case and agree that it should be affirmed for want of merit. We point out, however, two defects in the appellant’s abstract and brief. First, the testimony has been copied verbatim instead of being abstracted, as required by Rule 9. Smith v. Pond, 259 Ark. 564, 534 S.W. 2d 769 (1976); Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 239 Ark. 141, 387 S.W. 2d 605 (1965). Second, counsel has not presented the arguable points for reversal, as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel merely states, as a conclusion, that in his opinion there is nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal. The State, however, has supplied the deficiencies.

Affirmed.

Harris, C.J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 S.W.2d 573, 267 Ark. 154, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beavers-v-state-ark-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack