Reco Walker v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 349, 604 S.W.3d 611

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: June 10, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Reason: I attest to the accuracy Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 349 and integrity of this document Date: 2021-07-07 13:02:48 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Foxit PhantomPDF Version: 9.7.5 DIVISION I No. CR-19-691

RECO WALKER Opinion Delivered: June 10, 2020

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE INDEPENDENCE COUNTY V. CIRCUIT COURT [NOS. 32CR-15-208 & 32CR-15-212]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE TIM WEAVER, JUDGE APPELLEE REBRIEFING AND SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

MEREDITH B. SWITZER, Judge

Reco Walker pleaded guilty in August 2016 in the Independence County Circuit

Court to two Class D felonies—attempted delivery of a controlled substance

(methamphetamine) and possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine). 1 He was

placed on five years’ probation. The State filed a revocation petition in February 2019

alleging Walker had violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for marijuana,

failing to report, failing to provide proof of employment or enrollment in an educational

program, failing to pay fines, and failing to complete any of his court-ordered community-

service hours. After a hearing, the circuit court revoked Walker’s probation and sentenced

him to four years’ imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively.

1 Walker also pleaded guilty to one count of Class A misdemeanor attempted delivery of a controlled substance, for which he was placed on twelve months’ probation. 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, Walker’s counsel has filed a motion

to withdraw as counsel along with a no-merit brief asserting that there are no issues of

arguable merit for an appeal. The clerk of this court provided Walker with a copy of his

counsel’s brief and notified him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal,

but he has not filed any points. We hold that Walker’s counsel’s no-merit brief is not in

compliance with Anders and Rule 4-3(k). Therefore, we order rebriefing and deny 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, motions

and requests made by either party with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not

a meritorious ground for reversal.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) (2019). Rebriefing must be

ordered if counsel fails to abstract and address every adverse ruling. Bullington v. State, 2019

Ark. App. 2. This requirement 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. Dye v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 3 (citing Sartin v. State, 2010

Ark. 16, 362 S.W.3d 877).

The record demonstrates that counsel abstracted and addressed the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting the circuit court’s decision to revoke Walker’s probation. Counsel

acknowledges that a continuance was requested at the beginning of the hearing and was

denied by the circuit court. Counsel does not address the merits of this adverse ruling but

merely notes that a continuance would not remedy Walker’s past violations of the conditions

2 of his probation. Our review of the record also reveals that there was another adverse ruling

that was abstracted but not discussed by counsel—a hearsay objection by Walker’s counsel

during the testimony of Charles Anderson on page 8 of the abstract that the circuit court

overruled.

Furthermore, our review of the addendum reveals that the first page of the conditions

of probation is missing. Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) requires that the addendum

include “any document essential to an understanding of the case and the issues on appeal.”

Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2. A complete copy of Walker’s conditions of probation is essential to

an understanding of whether he violated the terms of his probation.

The deficiencies noted above should not be taken as an exhaustive list, and we

encourage counsel to review Anders, supra, and Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) for the

requirements of a no-merit brief as well as Rule 4-2(a) for the required contents of the

addendum. Counsel has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted brief

and addendum. 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 Walker, and he will have thirty days

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

be given an opportunity to file a responsive brief if pro se points are made.

Rebriefing and supplemental addendum ordered; motion to withdraw denied.

ABRAMSON and VIRDEN, JJ., agree.

Denton & Zachary, PLLC, by: Joe A. Denton, for appellant.

One brief only.