Goodman v. State

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 45
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-13-649
Opinion Delivered January 15, 2014
BRANDY MICHELLE GOODMAN APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-08-207]
V.
HONORABLE BARBARA ELMORE,
STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE
APPELLEE
MOTION DENIED; REBRIEFING
ORDERED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Brandy Goodman’s probation was revoked on the underlying charge of
endangering the welfare of a minor after the trial court found that she had violated the terms
and conditions of her probation. She was sentenced to two years in the Community
Correction Center. Goodman’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, alleging that an
appeal is wholly without merit. Goodman was notified of her right to file pro se points for
reversal; however, she has not done so. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and order
rebriefing.
An attorney’s request to withdraw from appellate representation based upon a meritless
appeal must be accompanied by a brief that contains a list of all rulings adverse to his client
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 45
that were made on any objection, motion, or request made by either party.1 The argument
section of the brief must contain an explanation of why each adverse ruling is not a
meritorious ground for reversal.2 This court is bound to perform a full examination of the
proceedings as a whole to decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous.3 Our supreme court
has held that the failure to abstract and discuss any adverse ruling in an Anders brief necessitates
rebriefing.4
Here, counsel has failed to follow the standards for submitting no-merit briefs as set out
in Anders.5 For example, counsel has failed to address Goodman’s request for “house arrest or
something else” so that she could still “be there for [her] children” at her sentencing.
Additionally, counsel has failed to abstract any of Goodman’s testimony or statements made
during the revocation and subsequent sentencing hearing. Therefore, we deny his motion to
withdraw.6 Counsel is urged to read the requirements for submitting no-merit briefs as set out
in both Anders7 and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363, 47 S.W.3d 918 (2001).
3
Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001).
4
Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16, 362 S.W.3d 877.
5
Anders, supra.
6
We note that counsel failed to reference Rule 4-3(k) or Anders v. California, supra, in
his motion to withdraw. Although counsel references Rule 4-3(j) in his brief, that is not the
appropriate subsection for the withdrawal of counsel.
7
Supra.
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 45
Appeals.8 Goodman has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted abstract,
brief, and addendum.9
Motion denied; rebriefing ordered.
WYNNE and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
The Lane Firm, by: Jonathan T. Lane, for appellant.
No response.
8
(2012).
9
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2013).
3