ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

May 24, 2001

RODNEY MAURICE RAGLIN

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CR 97-402

AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY,

NO. CR 89-2413

HONORABLE MARION HUMPHREY,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING ORDERED

In 1990, Rodney Raglin was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder and was sentenced to forty years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. We affirmed. Raglin v. State, CR 90-217 (Ark. February 25, 1991). At the time appellant was convicted, our postconviction remedy was embodied in Ark. R. Crim. P. Rule 36.4. Rule 36.4 required the trial court to advise the defendant at sentencing that he was entitled to file within thirty days a motion for postconviction relief if he was dissatisfied with his attorney's representation. Appellant was so advised but did not file a motion. At some point, appellant filed in the United States District Court two petitions seeking writs of habeas corpus which were consolidated, and on March 7, 1996, the magistrate issued an order declaring that the writ would issue in 120 days if appellant were not afforded a Rule 36.4 hearing in circuit court. The order further provided that appellant was to have the benefit of counsel at the hearing and on appeal to this court if relief were denied and an appeal taken.

During the postconviction hearing in circuit court, appellant raised several allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. He contended that his counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a ruling on a hearsay objection, and then for failing to move for a mistrial when the hearsay statement was uttered; for failing to adequately cross- examine a witness about plea negotiations that allegedly induced him to testify in the case; and for failing to object to a witness's testimony as speculation. Raglin also argued that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest because he also represented a key witness on unrelated charges. Finally, toward the end of the hearing, appellant argued that there had been prosecutorial misconduct during appellant's first trial. The circuit court took all issues under advisement and subsequently denied appellant's petition. Appellant appealed that order; however, we did not reach the merits because the circuit court had failed to make specific written findings. Thus, we reversed and remanded for the circuit court to enter the appropriate findings. The circuit court complied with our decision, and this appeal followed.

Raglin's appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief stating there is no merit to the appeal. Counsel has filed the motion and brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j). Under the Rule, a court-appointed attorney who wishes to withdraw from an appeal must abstract and brief all of the rulings that were adverse to his client. Although such a "no-merit" brief is typically filed in a direct appeal from a judgment, we have also allowed the filing of no-merit briefs in postconviction appeals. Matthews v. State, 332 Ark. 661, 966 S.W.2d 888 (1998).

After the filing of a no-merit brief, the appellant has thirty days to raise additional arguments in a pro se brief. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j). Appellant has filed a pro se brief. The State agrees with appellant's attorney that there is no merit to the appeal.

After reviewing the record for all adverse rulings against appellant, we have discovered thatcounsel has failed to fully brief and discuss an adverse ruling involving appellant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Counsel notes in her brief that appellant raised the issue but no motion was made and no ruling was given by the court. The record reveals that appellant raised a specific issue at the Rule 37 hearing and that the court took all issues under advisement. Therefore, we direct counsel to fully brief this specific issue and file the supplemental brief and abstract within thirty days of this opinion. A copy of counsel's brief will be mailed to appellant, and appellant will have thirty days to raise additional arguments relating to this issue in a pro se supplemental brief as provided by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j). At the end of appellant's thirty-day period, the State will then have thirty days to supplement its brief if desired.

Additional briefing ordered.