Liddell v. State

Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 172
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-14-683
ALBERT W. LIDDELL Opinion Delivered March 11, 2015
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2011-1018]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR.,
APPELLEE JUDGE
MOTION DENIED;
REBRIEFING ORDERED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
In July 2011, Albert W. Liddell pleaded guilty to theft of property and was sentenced
to eight years’ probation. In March 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke probation based
upon allegations that Liddell had violated written conditions of the probation. A revocation
hearing was held in the circuit court on April 30, 2014. The circuit court, upon finding that
Liddell had inexcusably violated several conditions, revoked probation and sentenced him to
thirty-six months’ imprisonment and thirty-six months’ suspended imposition of sentence.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-
3(k)(1), Liddell’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw asserting that
there are no nonfrivolous arguments that would support an appeal. Liddell was notified of
his right to file a list of pro se points for reversal, but he has not done so.
We order rebriefing because counsel’s brief does not comply with our rule’s
requirements. A request to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 172
shall be accompanied by a brief with an argument section containing “a list of all rulings
adverse to the defendant . . . on all objections, motions and requests made by either party with
an explanation as to why each ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.” Ark. Sup. Ct.
R. 4-3(k)(1) (2014). The brief’s abstract shall contain “material parts” of the transcripts,
including information “essential for the appellate court to . . . decide the issues on appeal.”
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) (2014). In appeals from criminal convictions, a no-merit brief that
omits even a single adverse ruling requires rebriefing. Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16, 362
S.W.3d 877.
The only adverse rulings listed in counsel’s brief are an evidentiary ruling and the
circuit court’s decision to revoke probation. Our review of the record reveals at least one
additional adverse ruling, which occurred when the circuit court pronounced sentence at the
conclusion of the hearing. This was in contravention of Liddell’s request that probation be
left intact or that sentencing be deferred to a later date. We also note a factual error in
counsel’s brief: the statement of the case indicates that the State filed its petition to revoke a
year before Liddell was put on probation.
We order counsel to file a substituted brief, abstract, and addendum within fifteen days
from the date of this opinion. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2014). We encourage counsel,
before rebriefing, to review our rules and the record to ensure that no additional deficiencies
are present.
Motion denied; rebriefing ordered.
VIRDEN and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
C. Brian Williams, for appellant.
No response.
2