NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

OLLY NEAL, Judge

DIVISION I

CACR00-1466

JULY 5, 2001

JAMES DEAN ODOM AN APPEAL FROM THE SALINE

APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT v. [CR99-240-2]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE GARY M. ARNOLD, APPELLEE CIRCUIT JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Appellant, James Dean Odom, was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana, with intent to deliver; manufacture of a controlled substance, marijuana; simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms; possession of drug paraphernalia; and felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment,a $10,000 fine, and $150 in court costs.

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, the appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw stating that there is no merit to the appeal. Appellant was furnished a copy of his counsel's brief and was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief within thirty days, which he has not done.

Appellant's counsel's motion was accompanied by an abstract and brief purportedly referring to everything in the record that might arguably support an appeal. After examining the record, we find that the no-merit brief has failed to comply with Rule 4-3 (j), and we order rebriefing. Rule 4-3(j)(1) provides:

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.

In the instant case, the trial court made six rulings adverse to the appellant during the guilt phase of trial, and one adverse ruling during the sentencing phase of the trial. Only two of those rulings were mentioned in the abstract of the no-merit brief and only one of those rulings was discussed in the argument section.

Because appellant's attorney has not properly abstracted all rulings adverse to the appellant and explained why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal, we find his brief to be deficient and remand this case on that basis. Appellant's attorney is instructed to rebrief this case within thirty days in accordance with Rule 4-3 (j). Both appellant and the State will be allowed their thirty-day periods in which to file respective briefs. The motion to withdraw is denied. If an appeal from even one of the seven adverse rulings made in the instant case would not be wholly frivolous, the Anders procedure should not be employed. See Eads v. State, ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (June 27, 2001).

Rebriefing ordered.

Hart and Vaught, JJ., agree.