Ryan Vernon v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. App. 517

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 517 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-24-394

RYAN VERNON Opinion Delivered October 29, 2025

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 23CR-20-491]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CHARLES E. APPELLEE CLAWSON III, JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge

Ryan Vernon appeals from a Faulkner County Circuit Court sentencing order

convicting him of one count of rape and two counts of second-degree sexual assault and

sentencing him to an aggregate of forty years’ imprisonment. In Vernon v. State, 2025 Ark.

App. 274, 713 S.W.3d 87 (Vernon I), we denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered

rebriefing. Vernon’s counsel again seeks to withdraw, asserting that an appeal in this case

would be wholly without merit. He has filed another motion and brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b). The clerk of this

court provided Vernon with a copy of counsel’s brief and notified him of his right to file pro

se points for reversal; he has not done so. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and order rebriefing because counsel’s substituted brief fails to comply with Anders, Rule 4-3(b), and

our rebriefing order.

A request to withdraw on the basis that the appeal is wholly without merit must be

accompanied by a brief containing an argument section that consists of 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(b)(1). The brief’s statement of the case and the facts

shall contain, in addition to the other material parts of the record, all rulings adverse to the

defendant made by the circuit court and the page number where each adverse ruling can be

found in the appellate record. Id.

In Vernon I, we directed counsel’s attention to various deficiencies in the no-merit

brief. First, we explained the deficiencies in the statement of the case, specifically noting that

the statement of the case and facts included none of the material information contained in

the record, no mentions of adverse rulings, and no page-number references to the record as

required by our rules. The statement of the case in the substituted brief is virtually identical

to the one in the original brief and is deficient.

Second, we explained that the argument section of the brief was deficient because it

stated that there were no “objections adverse to the [d]efendant,” which was inconsistent

with our review of the record. Moreover, we specifically mentioned multiple adverse rulings

that counsel failed to address. These included the allowance of Rule 404(b) evidence over

Vernon’s objection, numerous adverse evidentiary rulings, and the findings of guilt on all

2 three charges. Again, counsel’s substituted brief states that “there were no objections adverse

to [Vernon].”1

In the conclusion section of Vernon’s substituted brief, counsel states:

Counsel has further noted and discussed every event and circumstance including the 404(b) issue in the trial proceedings which might remotely be viewed as constituting reversible error and has discussed the standard of review and the reasons any adverse rulings are not meritorious grounds for reversal of the judgment of the Trial Court.

Counsel has confused the requirements of a no-merit brief. In Vernon, we stated:

A no-merit brief in a criminal case that fails to address an adverse ruling does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 4-3(b)(1), and rebriefing will be required. Thompson v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 399, at 2, 697 S.W.3d 723, 725. The requirement for briefing 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. Id. at 2–3, 697 S.W.3d at 725. The test is not whether counsel thinks the circuit court committed no reversible error but whether the points to be raised on appeal would be wholly frivolous. Id. at 3, 697 S.W.3d at 725.

2025 Ark. App. 274, at 3, 713 S.W.3d at 89 (emphasis added). Anders and Rule 4-3(b) require

counsel to address every adverse ruling and explain why each one would not be a meritorious

ground for reversal, not those—as counsel stated—that “might remotely be viewed as

constituting reversible error.”2

1 We note that counsel has attempted to address the allowance of Rule 404(b) evidence in the substituted brief. However, in his attempt to address the adverse ruling, counsel has not explained how the circuit court’s allowance of the Rule 404(b) evidence would not be a meritorious ground for reversal. 2 We further note that the bulk of counsel’s brief consists of verbatim parts of the transcript or direct quotes from cases without any explanation or analysis of how they relate to why an appeal would be wholly frivolous.

3 In our previous opinion, we cautioned counsel that the mentioned deficiencies

should not be considered exhaustive and directed counsel to carefully examine the record

and review our rules before submitting a substituted brief. We again restate all the

aforementioned directions. It is counsel’s responsibility to comply with the requirements for

submitting a no-merit brief. McDaniel v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 204, at 3. We further caution

counsel that repeated failures to comply with the requirements for filing a no-merit brief

outlined in Anders and Rule 4-3(b) will be referred to the Committee on Professional

Conduct. We again express no opinion as to whether the substituted brief should be

submitted pursuant to Rule 4-3 or on meritorious grounds. Counsel has fifteen days from

the date of this opinion to file a substituted brief. If a substituted no-merit brief is filed, our

clerk will forward counsel’s motion and brief to Vernon, and he will have thirty days within

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

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

Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.

BARRETT and THYER, JJ., agree.

Hensley Law Firm, PA, by: James E. Hensley, Jr., for appellant.

One brief only.