NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

JUDGE KAREN R. BAKER

DIVISION II

LYNN EUGENE YOUNG

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR00-956

JULY 5, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE IZARD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR1997-42]

HONORABLE JOHN DAN KEMP,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Lynn Eugene Young appeals from the revocation of his probation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(j) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, his lawyer has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on the ground that there is no merit to this appeal. Because our review of the record reveals that counsel has not fully complied with Rule 4-3(j), we order rebriefing.

On January 10, 2000, appellant entered a plea agreement on three charges: (1) being a felon in possession of a fire arm, a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-73-104, a Class Dfelony; (2) theft by receiving, a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106, a Class C felony; and (3) failure to appear, a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-24-120, a Class C felony. He was placed on three years suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) subject to several conditions.

Condition (m) of the suspension stated that the appellant "shall not commit an offense punishable by imprisonment."

A petition for revocation was filed by the State on February 1, 2000. The petition alleged that appellant violated the conditions of the SIS, and a hearing was held resulting in appellant being sentenced on the three charges to the Arkansas Department of Correction for a total of one hundred and twenty-six months to run consecutively.

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, Young's counsel filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that this appeal is without merit. We hold that the 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.

The brief filed by Young's attorney fails to conform to the requirements of this rule. The argument section does not contain an argument for each adverse ruling abstracted. In addition, our review of the record reveals that the abstract does not include all trial court rulings adverse to Mr. Young. Rule 4-3 requires appellant's counsel to abstract all adverse rulings and explain why each ruling would not support a meritorious appeal.

We find the no-merit brief of appellant's attorney to be deficient. Appellant's attorney is instructed to rebrief this case within thirty days in accordance with Rule 4-3(j). Both the appellant and the State will be allowed their thirty-day periods in which to file responsive briefs. The motion to withdraw is denied.

Rebriefing ordered.

Bird and Roaf, JJ., agree.