Ronald Huggins v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. App. 13

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: January 13, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 13 Digitally signed by Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Date: 2022.08.15 10:55:44 DIVISION III -05'00' No. CR-20-131 Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.002.20191 Opinion Delivered: January 13, 2021 RONALD HUGGINS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 30CR-19-224] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS, JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

Ronald Huggins was convicted by a Hot Spring County jury of failing to comply

with the sex-offender registration requirements. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to

twenty years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. 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, Huggins’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a

motion to withdraw as counsel asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit to raise

on appeal. Because counsel’s brief is not in compliance with Anders and Rule 4-3(k)(1), 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, 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) (2020). When counsel fails

to abstract and address every adverse ruling, we must order rebriefing. Bullington v. State,

2019 Ark. App. 2. We do so to ensure that the due-process concerns in Anders are met and

to prevent 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).

Upon our review of the record, we have determined that counsel in this case has

erroneously asserted that there was only one ruling decided adversely to Huggins—the

denial of his motion for directed verdict. We have identified at least three other rulings that

were decided adversely to Huggins: the denial of his proffered jury instruction on alternative

sentencing; the denial of his objection to the testimony of Sheri Flynn on Daubert 1 and

hearsay grounds; and the denial of his Rule 404(b) objection to the discussion of his criminal

history during the sentencing phase of his trial.

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 is required. Pettigrew v. State, 2019

Ark. App. 336. Accordingly, we order counsel to cure the deficiencies in his brief by filing

a substituted brief within fifteen days from the date of this opinion. We caution counsel that

the deficiencies we have identified should not be considered an exhaustive list, and that,

upon rebriefing, counsel is encouraged to review the record to ensure that all adverse rulings

have been addressed.

1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

2 After counsel has filed the substituted brief, our clerk will forward counsel’s new

motion and brief to Huggins, and he will have thirty days within which to file 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 filed.

Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.

VIRDEN and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

Gregory Crain, for appellant.

One brief only.