Cit e as 2014 Ark. App. 25



## ARKANS AS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II No. CR-13-94 JEREMY LEON STOCKTON APPELLANT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered January 15, 2014 APPEAL FROM TH E SEB ASTIAN COU NTY CIRCU IT COU RT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT [NO. CR-97-768, CR-00-45, CR-00- 587, CR-04-959] H ONORAB LE STEPH EN TAB OR, JU DGE REB RIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITH D RAW DENIED

BI L L H. WALMSLEY, Judge Pursuant t o Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (19 6 7 ) , and Arkansas S uprem e Court Rule 4 -3(k)(1), appellant Jerem y St ockt on’s counsel has filed a no-m erit brief and a m ot i on t o wit hdraw assert ing t hat t h e re are no non-frivolous argum ent s t h at would support an appeal. We are u nable t o consider t he appeal at t h i s t i m e , h owever, because t h e b rief is not in

com p liance wit h Arkansas Suprem e Court Rule 4-2(a) or Rule 4-3(k)(1). A p p el l a n t appeals from t he Novem b er 5, 2 012 order revoking his suspended im p osit ion of sent ence (SIS) on five count s in four sep a r at e cases: t h eft by d ecept i on ( C R

- 1 9 9 7

- 7 6 8 ) , s e c o n d

- degree forgery (CR- 2 0 0 0

- 5 8 7 ) , t h e f t b y r e c e i v i n g ( G

- C R

- 2 0 0 0

- 4 5 ) , resident ial burglary (CR-2004-959), and t heft of p roperty (CR-2004-959). Appellant filed

a not ice of appeal on November 8, 2012. An am ended sent encing order w as ent ered onCit e as 2014 Ark. App. 25

Novem ber 14, 2012, t o correctclerical errors. This cour t h a s st at ed t h at t he record on appeal i s lim i ted t o what is included in t he briefs and t he abst ract , and t he burden is on t he appellant t o p r o v i d e an abst ract and addendum t hat com p lies wit h Rule 4-2. Dorsey v. State , 2010 A rk. App. 7 4 2

. A r k a n s a s Suprem e Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A) requires t he addendum t o include t h e order from which
t h e appeal is t aken. H ere, t h e addendum does n ot i n c l ud e t h e sent encing order or t he

am ended sent encing o rder b eing appealed. Counsel h as also failed t o include in his addendum
t h e j u dgm ent and disposit i on order for c ase C R

- 2 004-959 along wit h t h e t erm s and condit ions for appellant ’s S I S i n that case. For t h ese reasons, we must order rebriefing to include t hese docum ent s necessary for appeal. Furt herm ore, appellant ’s c ounsel has f ailed t o discuss all adverse rulings in t he argum ent
sect ion of his brief. Rule 4-3(k)(1) provides that “t he b rief shall c ont ain an argum e n t sect i on t h at consist s of a list o f all r ulings adverse t o t he defendant m ade by the circuit court on al l object ions, mot ions and request s made by eit her part y wit h an expla n a t i o n as to why each adverse r uling is not a merit orious ground for reversal.” Counsel has failed to address t wo adverse rulings m ade on obj e c t i ons during d efense counsel’s exam inat ion of wit nesses. A

no-m erit brief t hat fails t o address an adverse ruling does not sat isfy t he requirem e n t s of Rule 4-3(k)(1) and m ust be rebriefed. Dorsey , supra . Accordingly, we order appellant t o file a subst i t ut ed brief cont aining all adverse rulings and a subst it ut ed addendum c ont aining all relevant docum ent s. 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. S up. Ct

. R. 4 -2(b)(3). The

2Cit e as 2014 Ark. App. 25

briefing deficiencies set fort h in our opinion are not to be t aken as an exhaust ive list , and we urge counsel t o carefully exam ine the record and review the rules before resubm it t ing a brief. Rebriefing ordered; m ot ion t o wit hdraw denied. G L O V E R and V A U G H T , JJ., agree. E van C. B e ll , for appellant

. No response.

3