Jeffery Lance H. Duckworth v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. App. 347

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: June 4, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 347 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-25-75

JEFFERY LANCE H. DUCKWORTH Opinion Delivered June 4, 2025 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 63CR-24-256]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE KEN CASADY, JUDGE APPELLEE REMANDED TO SETTLE AND SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD; REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

A Saline County jury found Jeffery Lance H. Duckworth guilty of possession of a

controlled substance, and he was sentenced as a habitual offender to thirteen years’

imprisonment. Duckworth’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(b)(1), asserting

that an appeal would be wholly frivolous. We cannot address the appeal at this time and

must remand to settle and supplement the record within thirty days.

In order to determine whether there has been compliance with Anders, we must have

the entire record of the circuit court proceedings, including a transcript of the jury-selection

process. Golden v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 73; Yancy v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 12; Mace v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 472. In this case, as in Mace, voir dire was not designated to be included in

the record for this appeal. We examine all the proceedings in a no-merit appeal “[i]nstead of

reviewing only the parts of the record that the lawyer puts before us.” Campbell v. State, 74

Ark. App. 277, 280-C, 53 S.W.3d 48, 50 (2001) (supplemental opinion on denial of

rehearing).

We express no opinion on whether counsel should file another no-merit brief or an

adversarial one, but if he chooses to file a no-merit brief, he should first determine whether

there are any adverse rulings in the transcribed material following supplementation of the

record. The omission we have noted here may not be the only deficiency present in the

record, and counsel is strongly encouraged to review Anders and Rule 4-3(b)(1) for the

requirements of a no-merit brief. Once the record is supplemented, the clerk will establish a

new briefing schedule. Counsel may file a substituted brief, if necessary; Duckworth may file

pro se points for reversal, and the State will be given an opportunity to file another responsive

brief in light of the supplemental record and in the event Duckworth raises pro se points.

Remanded to settle and supplement the record; rebriefing ordered; motion to

withdraw denied without prejudice.

THYER and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Nobles Law Firm, PLLC, by: Ethan C. Nobles, for appellant.

One brief only.