Troy C. Sandidge, Jr. v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 322

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: June 3, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 322 Reason: I attest to the accuracy ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS and integrity of this document Date: 2021-07-07 12:59:10 DIVISION III Foxit PhantomPDF Version: No. CR-19-960 9.7.5

Opinion Delivered: June 3, 2020 TROY C. SANDIDGE, JR. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE YELL COUNTY V. CIRCUIT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT STATE OF ARKANSAS [NO. 75NCR-16-1] APPELLEE HONORABLE JERRY DON RAMEY, JUDGE

MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; REBRIEFING ORDERED

RITA W. GRUBER, Chief Judge

The Yell County Circuit Court revoked Troy Sandidge’s probation and sentenced

him to eight years’ imprisonment. Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) and

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw

stating that there is no merit to an appeal. The motion is accompanied by an abstract and

addendum of the proceedings below and a brief in which counsel explains why there is

nothing in the record that would support an appeal. The clerk of this court served appellant

with a copy of counsel’s brief and notified him of his right to file a pro se statement of points

for reversal within thirty days, but he has not done so. We hold that counsel’s no-merit brief

is not in compliance with Anders and Rule 4-3(k). Accordingly, we order rebriefing and

deny without prejudice counsel’s motion to withdraw. Rule 4-3(k) requires the argument section of a no-merit brief to contain “a list of all

rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court on all objections, motions and

requests . . . with an explanation as to why each . . . is not a meritorious ground for reversal.”

The requirement for abstracting and 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. Vail v. State, 2019

Ark. App. 8, at 2. Pursuant to Anders, we are required to determine, after a full examination

of all the proceedings, whether the case is wholly frivolous. T.S. v. State, 2017 Ark. App.

578, 534 S.W.3d 160. 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.

Riley v. State, 2019 Ark. 252, at 2.

Our review of this record demonstrates that counsel failed to address at least one

adverse ruling. Counsel adequately addressed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the

circuit court’s decision to revoke appellant’s probation. Counsel did not, however, address

the circuit court’s denial of appellant’s request for reinstatement of his probation. See

Pettigrew v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 336. Appellant testified that he was specifically asking the

court to reinstate his probation, stating that he would “never mess up again.” He explained

that he was working and getting his life “right.” The court denied his request and sentenced

him to eight years’ imprisonment. Counsel failed to explain why this would not be a

meritorious ground for reversal on appeal.

The deficiencies we have noted should not be considered an exhaustive list, and

counsel is strongly encouraged to review Anders and Rule 4-3(k) of the Arkansas Rules of

2 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 he will have thirty days

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

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

Motion to withdraw denied without prejudice; rebriefing ordered.

MURPHY and BROWN, JJ., agree.

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

One brief only.