Kerrie Louise Davis v. State of Arkansas

2019 Ark. App. 332

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: June 5, 2019
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2019 Ark. App. 332 Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Perry Date: 2022.07.21 12:02:28 DIVISION III -05'00' No. CR-18-680 Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.001.20169 Opinion Delivered June 5, 2019

KERRIE LOUISE DAVIS APPEAL FROM THE CONWAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANT [NO. 15CR-17-110]

HONORABLE JERRY RAMEY, V. JUDGE

MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; STATE OF ARKANSAS REBRIEFING ORDERED

APPELLEE

LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge

Appellant Kerrie Louise Davis was convicted by a Conway County Circuit Court jury

of one count of possession of less than two grams of methamphetamine with purpose to

deliver, a Class C felony, with an enhancement based on her status as a habitual offender. She

was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k)(1) (2018) of the Rules of

the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, appellant’s attorney has filed a no-merit

brief and a motion to withdraw arguing that this appeal is without merit. The motion is

accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below purporting to include all

adverse rulings and a brief in which counsel explains why there is nothing in the record that

would support an appeal. Davis has filed pro se points for reversal, and the State has filed a brief in response. However, counsel’s no-merit brief is not in compliance with Anders and Rule

4-3(k). Therefore, we order rebriefing and deny without prejudice counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

Rule 4-3(k)(1) requires that the argument section of a no-merit brief contain “a list of

all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court on all objections . . . with an

explanation as to why each . . . is not a meritorious ground for reversal” and that “the abstract

and addendum of the brief shall contain . . . all rulings adverse to the defendant.” Ark. Sup.

Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1). Generally speaking, if a no-merit brief fails to address all the adverse rulings,

it will be sent back for rebriefing. Id. at 4, 362 S.W.3d at 880. The requirement to abstract and

brief every adverse ruling ensures that the due-process concerns in Anders are met and prevents

the unnecessary risk of a deficient Anders brief resulting in an incorrect decision on counsel’s

motion to withdraw. Sartin, 2010 Ark. 16, at 8, 362 S.W.3d at 882. For these reasons, a no-

merit brief in a criminal case that fails to address an adverse ruling does not satisfy the

requirements of Rule 4-3(k)(1), and rebriefing will be required. Id.

Our review of the record reveals at least two adverse ruling not addressed by counsel.

On page thirteen of the abstract, the circuit court sustained the State’s objections to Davis’s

testimony. Counsel fails to discuss these adverse rulings in her no-merit brief. In Frazier v.

State, 2009 Ark. App. 521, at 2, 336 S.W.3d 878, 879, we denied counsel’s motion to be relieved

and ordered rebriefing because counsel failed to discuss the circuit court’s decision to sustain

the State’s objection to witness testimony, which is an adverse ruling that must be addressed

pursuant to Anders.

2 Counsel is strongly encouraged to review Anders, supra, and Rule 4-3(k) of the Arkansas

Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the requirements of a no-merit brief.

Counsel has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted brief that complies

with the rules. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). After counsel has filed the substituted brief, our

clerk will forward counsel’s motion and brief to appellant, and she will have thirty days within

which to raise additional pro se points in accordance with Rule 4-3(k). The State will likewise

be given an opportunity to file a responsive brief. Appellant and the State may elect to stand

on the original pro se points and responsive brief in this case.

Motion to withdraw denied; rebriefing ordered.

KLAPPENBACH and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.

Robert N. Jeffrey, Attorney at Law, by: Robert N. Jeffrey, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.