Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 598



## ARKANS AS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I No. CR-14-866

GERALD JERMAINE ALLEN APPELLANT V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered Oct ober 21, 2015 APPEAL FROM TH E CRITTENDEN COU NTY CIRCU IT COU RT [NO. CR-13-467] H ONORAB LE RALPH WILSON, JU DGE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITH DRAW GRANTED; REMANDED WITH INSTRU CTIONS TO CORRECT SENTENCING ORDER WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
A Crit t enden Count y jury found appellant Gerald Allen guilt y of aggravat ed assault , and he w as sent enced as a habit u al offender t o nine years’ im prisonm ent . 1 Appellant ’s counsel has f iled a m ot ion t o wit hdraw and a n o-m erit brief p ursuant to Anders v. California 2 and Rule 4-3(k) of t he Rules of t h e Arkansas Suprem e Court and Court of Appeals. The clerk of t his
court provided appellant wit h a copy of counsel’s brief and m o t ion, and not ified appellant of

1 Appellant was also charged wit h arson, but t hat charge result ed in a m i st rial due t o a hung jury.

2 386 U .S. 738 (1967).Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 598

his right to file pro se point s f or reversal. Appellant has not subm it ted any point s f or reversal. 3 A request t o be relieved as counsel on t h e ground t hat t h e appeal is wholly wit hout

m erit shall be accom panied by a brief including an abst ract and addendum

. 4 The brief shall
cont ain an argum ent sect ion t hat consist s o f a list of all rulings adverse to the d efendant m ade by t h e t rial court wit h an explanat ion as t o w h y e ach adverse ruling is not a m erit orious ground for r eversal. 5 It is im perat ive t hat counsel follow t he appropriat e procedure when filing a m ot i on t o wit h d raw as counsel. 6 In furt h e r a nc e of the goal of prot ect ing
const i tut ional right s, i t is bot h t he dut y of counsel and of t h i s c o ur t t o perform a full

exam i n at ion of t he proceedings as a whole t o decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous. 7 From our r eview of t he r ecord and t he brief present ed to u s, we hold t hat counsel has

com p lied wit h Rule 4-3(k)(1) and agree t hat t here is no m erit t o an appeal. Therefore, we affirm appellant ’s convict ion and grant counsel’s mot i on to w it hdraw. H owever, we n ot e t h at , in t he sent encing order, t he t rial court indicat ed t hat appellant w as found guilt y by t he

cour t a n d s en t e nced b y t he court . This was a jury t r ial, and the court accept e d t he jury’s

3 This is t he second t im e t his case has be e n b e f o r e us. We init ially denied counsel’s m ot ion t o wit hdraw and ordered rebriefing due to deficiencies. Allen v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 415.
4 Ark. Sup. Ct . R. 4-3(k)(1).

5 Id

. 6 B rown v. State , 85 Ark. App. 382, 155 S.W.3d 22 (2004).
7 Campbell v. State , 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001). 2Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 598

s e n t e nce recom m endat ion. Therefore, we rem and t o t h e t rial court wit h inst ruct ions to correct t he sent encing order. Affirm ed; m ot ion t o wit hdraw grant ed; r em anded wit h in s t ruct ions t o correct sent encing order. A B R A M S O N and H A R R I S O N , JJ., agree. S. B utler B e rnard, Jr. , for appellant

. No response.

3