DIVISION I

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JUDGE WENDELL L. GRIFFEN

CACR00-327

February 28, 2001

ARLISS WHITNEY AN APPEAL FROM CRITTENDEN

APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[CR96-611; CR96-622]

V. HON. GERALD PEARSON, JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED

Arliss Whitney appeals from the revocation of his probation and suspended sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule

4-3(j), appellant's counsel has filed a no-merit brief, and petitions this court to withdraw as counsel. Counsel's brief purports to analyze the adverse rulings that might support an appeal and demonstrate why the appeal is without merit. In addition, appellant has filed pro se points for reversal with this court. The State failed to file a brief on the erroneous conclusion that appellant did not file pro se points with this court. Because appellant's counsel failed to address all of the adverse rulings and because the State did not file a brief, we remand for rebriefing.

In July 1996, appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with theintent to sell or deliver and was placed on probation for ten years. He also pleaded guilty to a second identical count, and received a twenty-year suspended sentence. On October 18, 1999, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant's probation and suspended sentence, alleging, inter alia, that he failed to report to his probation officer as directed, failed to pay probation fees as required, possessed instruments of crime, possessed and used controlled substances, and associated with other felons.

At the close of all of the evidence presented during the revocation hearing, appellant's counsel moved for a directed verdict. The trial court stated there was substantial evidence to support the petition to revoke, and therefore, revoked appellant's probation and suspended sentence. The court ordered him to serve ten years based on the first possession charge and twenty-years based on the second possession charge. These sentences are to be served consecutively. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal with regard to his revocation, and later filed a timely notice of appeal with regard to the denial of his appeal bond.

We remand for rebriefing because appellant's counsel fails to analyze all of the adverse rulings, and because the State failed to file a brief. First, appellant's counsel does not provide a concise or cogent analysis regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. Instead, he merely makes three scattered references to the evidence supporting the trial courts' denial of appellant's motion for a directed verdict, without analyzing all of the supporting evidence. Second, appellant's counsel also fails to address the trial court's denial of appellant's appeal bond. Counsel abstracted the notice of appeal filed from the denial of the appeal bond, but did not abstract the motion for an appeal bond or the order denying an appeal bond, stating,"those items are not necessary for an understanding of the issues on appeal. . ." Further, appellant's counsel fails to analyze this issue in the argument section his brief. Finally, counsel failed to analyze whether the trial court's order that appellant's sentences be served consecutively constitutes a meritorious basis for an appeal.

Because appellant's counsel has not complied with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(j) and the Anders blueprint, we remand for rebriefing on these issues. See Sweeney v. State, 69 Ark. App. 7, 9 S.W.3d 529 (2000). Additionally, appellant's counsel should make a motion to supplement the record, and obtain and include a transcript of proceedings, if any, in which the trial court denied appellant's appeal bond. Finally, because appellant filed pro se points for reversal, the State is ordered to file a brief in this case.

Rebriefing ordered.

Bird and Hart, JJ., agree.