Mason v. State

336 S.W.3d 423, 2009 Ark. App. 518, 2009 Ark. App. LEXIS 599
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedJuly 1, 2009
DocketCA CR 08-408
StatusPublished

This text of 336 S.W.3d 423 (Mason v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mason v. State, 336 S.W.3d 423, 2009 Ark. App. 518, 2009 Ark. App. LEXIS 599 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge.

|,A Pulaski County jury found appellant, Frederick Dwayne Mason, guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery, theft of property, and second-degree battery. He was sentenced to a term of 660 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. His appointed counsel, Danny R. Williams, filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that the appeal is wholly without merit. Although this no-merit appeal is before us for a second time, Mr. Williams has again filed a brief that is not in compliance with the decision in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

In an unpublished opinion dated January 14, 2009, we ordered rebriefing because counsel had neither abstracted nor discussed several adverse rulings. In the interest of justice 12and timeliness, we now specifically direct counsel to pages 122-23, 156, 207, and 230-31 of the record. Why counsel failed to comply with Anders v. California and our prior orders of rebrief-ing in this case is unclear. The consequence of once again ignoring our mandate is not. If Mr. Williams does not file a conforming brief, we will consider appointing Mason new appellate counsel and reporting Mr. Williams to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct.

Rebriefing is ordered, allowing Mason’s counsel an additional thirty days in which to file a substituted brief, abstract, and addendum and cure any and all deficiencies. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). Mr. Williams’s motion to withdraw as counsel is denied.

Rebriefing ordered.

PITTMAN and GLADWIN, JJ, agree.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
336 S.W.3d 423, 2009 Ark. App. 518, 2009 Ark. App. LEXIS 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-state-arkctapp-2009.