Dequintis Bailey v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 17

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: January 15, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 17 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-19-340

DEQUINTIS BAILEY Opinion Delivered: January 15, 2020

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 46CR-18-403]

HONORABLE KIRK JOHNSON, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

MEREDITH B. SWITZER, Judge

DeQuintis Bailey was charged as an adult with four counts of raping a child under

the age of fourteen. He moved to transfer the case to the juvenile division of circuit court

or, alternatively to designate the case as an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding.

Following a hearing, the circuit court entered an order on March 7, 2018. In it, the court

denied both the request to transfer the case and the alternative request to designate it as an

extended juvenile-jurisdiction proceeding. The court made written findings addressing the

factors listed in Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-318(g) (Repl. 2015). Bailey filed

this interlocutory appeal from the order. His appointed appellate counsel has filed a

motion to be relieved pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k)

of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, contending that this

appeal of the transfer decision is wholly without merit. The motion is accompanied by a brief, which contains an abstract and addendum related to the transfer proceedings.

Counsel asserts that the only adverse ruling pertinent to this interlocutory appeal is the

denial of the motion to transfer. The clerk of this court provided Bailey with a copy of his

counsel’s motion to withdraw along with the accompanying brief and informed him of his

right to file pro se points. Bailey has filed one pro se point, and the State has filed a brief

addressing it, contending that the argument is without merit. We deny the motion to

withdraw and return the case to Bailey’s counsel for rebriefing because the requirements of

Anders, supra, and Rule 4-3(k) have not been satisfied.

An attorney attempting to withdraw from a criminal appeal is obligated to list every

adverse ruling and explain how each ruling could provide no meritorious ground for

reversal. Price v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 173. Even a single omission from a no-merit brief

necessarily requires rebriefing. Id.

Here, Bailey’s counsel presents only one adverse ruling—the denial of the transfer

motion itself. In addition to its denial of Bailey’s motion to transfer, the circuit court also

denied his alternate request for extended juvenile jurisdiction. Counsel presumably

determined it was not necessary to address the denial of extended juvenile jurisdiction

separately because extended juvenile jurisdiction would be available only if the court had

granted the transfer to the juvenile division. It is, however, a separate request for relief that

was denied, and every single adverse ruling — substantive or not — must be noted and

addressed by counsel in an Anders case. It is therefore necessary to return this case for

rebriefing.

2 Counsel is directed to file a substituted brief, abstract, and addendum, within

fifteen days from the date of this opinion. While we have noted the one omitted adverse

ruling our review of the record revealed, we encourage counsel to carefully review the rules

and Anders, supra, to ensure that no other deficiencies exist before refiling his brief. Upon

refiling of the corrected brief, counsel’s motion and brief will be forwarded by the clerk to

Bailey so that, within thirty days, he may again raise any points he chooses in accordance

with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k)(2).

Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.

ABRAMSON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.

Joseph C. Self, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.