William Sterling Cook v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. App. 18

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

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 18 Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Perry DIVISION I Date: 2022.08.15 10:45:23 No. CR-19-923 -05'00' Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.002.20191 Opinion Delivered: January 13, 2021 WILLIAM STERLING COOK APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE POINSETT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 56CR-17-309] V. HONORABLE PAMELA HONEYCUTT, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant William Cook appeals from the Poinsett County Circuit Court’s

revocation of his probation. Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-

merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 1 and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4–3(k),

stating there are no meritorious grounds to support an appeal. The clerk of this court mailed

a certified copy of counsel’s motion and brief to appellant, informing him of his right to file

pro se points for reversal; he has declined to do so. We hold that counsel’s no-merit brief

fails to address all adverse rulings and therefore is not in compliance with Anders and Rule

4–3(k). Accordingly, 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,

1 386 U.S. 738, (1967). and requests . . . with an explanation as to why each . . . is not a meritorious ground for

reversal.” 2 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. 3 Pursuant

to Anders, we are required to determine after a full examination of all the proceedings,

whether the case is wholly frivolous. 4 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. 5

Our careful review of the record demonstrates that while counsel did adequately

address the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the circuit court’s decision to revoke

appellant’s probation, there is an adverse ruling that counsel failed to address. At the

conclusion of all testimony, the circuit court found that the State proved by a preponderance

of the evidence that appellant had violated multiple conditions of his probation. The State

then suggested a sentence of forty-eight months’ incarceration. Appellant’s counsel

responded by requesting a lesser sentence of thirty-six months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas

Department of Correction. The circuit court denied the request for a lesser sentence by

sentencing appellant to serve a term of sixty months’ incarceration. Counsel failed to address

2 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1). 3 Vail v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 8. 4 T.S. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 578, 534 S.W.3d 160. 5 Riley v. State, 2019 Ark. 252.

2 this adverse ruling and explain why it would not be a meritorious ground for reversal on

appeal.

Counsel is encouraged to review Anders, supra, and Rule 4-3(k) of the Arkansas Rules

of 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. 6 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 likewise be given an opportunity to

file a responsive brief if pro se points are made.

Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.

HARRISON, C.J., and GLADWIN, J., agree.

Cullen & Co., PLLC, by: Tim Cullen, for appellant.

One brief only.

6 See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).