NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

SAM BIRD, JUDGE

DIVISION II

CHRISTOPHER N. JONES,

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,

APPELLEE

CACR00-1274

JUNE 27, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NO. CR99-329,

HON. JOHN FOGLEMAN, JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Appellant Christopher Jones was convicted of burglary and received a sentence of ten years, with five suspended, conditioned on good behavior. The State filed a petition to revoke Jones's suspended sentence contending that he had failed to pay fines and costs and had committed rape. The court revoked the suspended sentence and found Jones guilty of the offense or rape. He appeals only the court's revocation of his probation.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(j) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Jones's attorney has filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that this appeal is without merit. The State did not file a brief, and Jones did not file a pro se statement of points on appeal.

We hold that appellant's attorney has failed to comply with the requirements of Anders v. California, supra, and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j), and we order rebriefing.

Rule 4-3(j)(1) states, in part:

A request to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit shall be accompanied by a brief including an abstract. The brief shall contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the trial court on all objections, motions and requests made by either party with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. The abstract section of the brief shall contain, in addition to the other material parts of the record, all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the trial court. [Emphasis added.]

Although counsel has properly abstracted the testimony in the abstract portion of her brief, she has not abstracted any of the objections or the court's rulings thereon. While counsel has properly included in the argument portion a list of all rulings adverse to the appellant, we are unable to perform the court's function of conducting "a full examination of the proceedings," as required by Anders, supra, and Rule 4-3(j), without an abstract of the proceedings relating to those adverse rulings.

Because Jones's attorney has not properly abstracted the adverse rulings, we find her brief to be deficient and remand this case on that basis. Jones's attorney is instructed to rebrief this case within thirty days in accordance with Rule 4-3(j). Both Jones and the State will be allowed their thirty-day periods in which to file responsive briefs. The motion to withdraw is denied.

Rebriefing ordered.

Baker and Roaf, JJ., agree.