Cit e as 2014 Ark. App. 26



## ARKANS AS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II No. CR-13-159 JASON DOVE APPELLANT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered January 15, 2014 APPEAL FROM TH E CRITTENDEN COU NTY CIRCU IT COU RT [NO. CR2011-1131, CR2011-1219]
H ONORAB LE JOH N N. FOGLEMAN, JU DGE REB RIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITH D RAW DENIED

BI L L H. WALMSLEY, Judge Appellant Jason Dove appeals from t he revocat ion of his probat ion. Pursuant t o Anders

v. California , 386 U .S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Suprem e Court Rule 4-3(k)(1), 1 appellant ’s counsel has filed a no-m e rit brief and a m ot ion t o w it hdraw. We are u nable t o c onsider t he appeal at t his t im e and order rebriefing. On Novem ber 22, 2011, appellant pleaded guilt y t o one count of resident ial burglary in case CR-2011-1131 and one coun t of resident ial burglary in case CR-2011-1219. I n CR-2011-1131, he was sent e nced t o t en yea r s ’ p r o bat ion. In CR-2011-1219, he was
sent enced t o t wo years’ probat ion. On May 23, 2012, t he St at e filed a pet i tion to revoke in

1 Counsel has failed to include t hese cit at ions in his brief. I n H ollins v. S tate , 2013 A rk. App. 695, we inform ed t his at t orney t h at such a failure would result in n o-m erit briefs being uniform ly ret urned for rebriefin g . In t h e present appeal, c ounsel’s brief and m ot ion were subm i tt ed prior t o Hollins being decided. W e order rebriefing on ot her grounds and direct counsel t o include t hese cit at ions in his subst it ut ed brief and m ot ion.Cit e as 2014 Ark. App. 26

bot h cases. Aft er a hearing, t he circuit court f ound t hat appellant had violat ed his probat i on by c om m it t ing the offenses o f f leeing, t heft of propert y, and breaking o r ent e r ing. U pon
revocat ion, appellant was sent enced t o t e n years’ im prisonm ent in bot h cases t o run
concurrent ly. Counsel assert s t hat t he t rial court d id n ot com mit e rror in overruling appellant ’s object ions or i n denyin g h i s m o t i on for direct ed verdict

. H owever, counsel has failed to address all of t he adverse rulings. Rule 4-3(k)(1) provides, in part , t hat The brief shall cont ain an argum ent sect i o n t hat consist s of a list of all rulings adverse t o t he defendant m ade by t he circuit c ourt o n all object ions, m o t ions and request s m a d e b y eit h e r p art y wit h an e xplanat ion as t o why each adverse ruling i s n o t a m erit orious ground for r eversal. The abst r act and Addendum of t he brief shall cont ain, in addit ion t o t he ot her mat erial part s of the record, all rulings adverse to t he defendant m ade by t h e circuit court

. Cou n s el did not abst ract t he t est im ony of appellant ’s probat ion officer, Const ance B rown. Al t h o u g h t he circuit c ourt did not base it s revocat ion decision on t he violat ions B rown t est ified about , t hree adverse rulings o ccurred during B rown’s t est im o ny. A ppellant

m ade t wo o bject ions that were o v e rruled regarding t he adm ission of h is probat ion file. Appellant ’s object ion t o a q ue s t ion t he St at e asked B rown was also overruled. A no-m erit brief t h at f

ails t o address an adverse ruling does n ot sat i sfy t h e r equirem ent s of Rule 4-3(k)(1) and m u st be rebriefed. Dorsey v. State , 2010 Ark. App. 742. Counsel has fift een days from

t h e dat e of t his opinion in w hich t o file a subst it ut ed brief. Ark. Sup. Ct

. R. 4-2(b)(3). The briefing deficiencies set fort h in o u r opinion are not to be t aken as an exhaust ive list , and we urge counsel t o carefully e xam ine t he r ecord and review t he rules before resubm it t ing a brief. Rebriefing ordered; m ot ion t o wit hdraw denied.
2Cit e as 2014 Ark. App. 26

G L O V E R and V A U G H T , JJ., agree. C. B r ian W

illiam s , f o r ap p e llan t

. N o re sp o n se .

3