Cit e as 2014 A rk . A p p . 29



## ARKANS AS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III No. CR-13-180

CH RISTOPH ER C. CORY APPELLANT V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered January 15, 2014 APPEAL FROM TH E CRITTENDEN COU NTY CIRCU IT COU RT [NO. CR-10-1108] H ONORAB LE JOH N N. FOGLEMAN, JU DGE REB RIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITH D RAW DENIED
BRANDON J. HARRI SON, Judge

On 30 Sept em ber 2010, Chri s t o p h er Cory p led guilt y t o theft by receiving and received a sent ence of t hirt y-six m ont hs’ p robat i on. A pet it ion t o revoke h is probat ion was filed 6 August 2012, alleging failure t o pay fines, cost s, and fees as direct ed; failure t o report
t o probat ion as d i r e c t e d; failure t o pay probat ion fees; and f ailure to not ify sheriff and probat ion of his current address and em ploym ent . Aft er a hearing, his p robat ion was revoked, and he was sent enced t o t w en t y - f o ur m ont hs’ i m prisonm ent and five years’ suspended im p osit ion of sent ence. Cory’s counsel has filed a brief suggest i n g t hat t here is no m erit to
t h is appeal and t hat t he r evo c a t ion should be affirm ed. W e cannot r each t he m erit s of t his appeal because counsel has deficiencies in his brief. As allowed by Rule 4-3 of t he Rules of t he Arkansas Suprem e Court and Court of Appeals, Cory’s c ounsel has f iled what is charact erized as a n o-m erit brief and a m ot ion askingCit e as 2014 A rk . A p p . 29

t o wit h d raw as counsel. A request t o wit hdraw on t he ground t h at t he appeal is wholly wit hout m erit m ust be accom p anied b y a brief including an abst r act and addendu m . A rk. Sup. Ct

. R. 4-3(k)(1). Counsel’s brief m ust cont ain an a rgum ent sect i on t hat list s all t he circuit court ’s adverse rulings and explains why each adverse ruling i s n o t a m erit orious ground f or reversal. Id

. To furt her prot ect t he const it ut ional r ight s of an appellant like Cory, bot h counsel and t his court m ust fully e xam ine t h e l o w er court proceedings as a whole to d e t e rm ine if an appeal would be wholly frivolous. W alton v. State , 94 Ark. App. 229, 228 S.W.3d 524 (2006). We hold t hat counsel’s brief is deficient for several reasons. First , counsel has failed to follow t he “fram ework” for n o-m erit appeals or t o cit e Rule 4

- 3 i n h i s b r i ef. And while

couns el’s m ot ion t o wit hdraw does st at e that t he appeal is “wholly wit hout m erit ,” it cit es Rule 4-3(j), which governs t he preparat ion of briefs for indigent appellant s. Rule 4-3(k) is
t h e applicable rule. The brief also violat es t he requirem ent s of Rule 4-2, which requires that all ma t e r i a l p a rt s of t he t ranscript in t he record be abst ract ed (em phasis added). In t his case, t h e abst ract cont ain s p o r t ions t hat are not r elevant t o this appeal and are from an ent irely different case. Due to t hese deficiencies, we deny counsel’s m ot ion to w it h draw, and we rem and for rebriefing. Counsel has fift een days from t he dat e of t his opinion t o file a subst it ut ed brief that

com p lies wit h the r ules. See Ark. Sup. Ct

. R. 4-2(b)(3). The deficiencies we h a v e n ot ed should not be considered as an exhaust ive l ist , and counsel i s encouraged t o review Anders v. California , 386 U .S. 7 38 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of t he A rkansas Rules of t he S uprem e Court

2Cit e as 2014 A rk . A p p . 29

and Court of Appeals for t he requirem ent s of a no-m e r it brief. Rebriefing ordered; m ot ion t o wit hdraw denied. G R U B E R and W O O D , JJ., agree. C. B rian W

i lliams , for appellant

. No response.

3