ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JUDGE JOSEPHINE LINKER HART DIVISION I

CHARLES PALMER CANNON

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR00-1192

June 27, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR98-174]

HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

After appellant Charles Palmer Cannon was charged with second-degree battery in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-202 (Supp. 1999), the State filed a petition to revoke his probation, to which he was sentenced on January 25, 1999, following his plea of guilty to impairing the operation of a vital public facility in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-38-205 (Repl. 1997). The State alleged in the revocation petition that appellant's arrest for second-degree battery and his failure to pay probation fees were sufficient violations of the probation conditions to warrant revocation of his probation.

Appellant and the State ostensibly agreed that the petition to revoke appellant's probation would be tried simultaneously with the jury trial on the second-degree battery charge. As the jury deliberated on the underlying question of whether appellant was guilty of second-degree battery, the trial judge found that appellant had violated the conditions of his probation and revoked said probation. Following the jury's finding that appellant was

guilty of second-degree battery, the trial judge sentenced appellant to seventy-two months' imprisonment on the impairing the operation of a vital public facility offense, which was to run consecutively with the sentence of three years' imprisonment for the battery conviction. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-3(j)(1), appellant's attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief stating that there is no merit to the appeal. We find that the no-merit brief does not comply with the requirements of Anders and Rule 4-3(j)(1). Accordingly, we order rebriefing.

Appellant's counsel cited only one adverse ruling in his brief (i.e., denial of a directed-verdict motion), but failed to include all the adverse rulings that were given during the trial and sentencing phases of this case. Rule 4-3(j) requires that the brief and abstract shall contain all rulings adverse to a defendant made by the trial court on all objections, motions, and requests made by either party. From our examination of the record, we see that counsel has failed to include at least three additional adverse rulings. In addition to the denial of the directed-verdict motion to which counsel gave only cursory attention, appellant was confronted with adverse rulings concerning the introduction of various testimonial evidence and pertaining to his sentence. Because counsel's brief does not comply with the rule, counsel is directed to file a substituted brief and abstract.

Rebriefing ordered.

NEAL and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.