ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE

DIVISION III

JAN CLIFTON DOYLE

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 01-367

NOVEMBER 7, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-99-409]

HONORABLE JOHN NELSON

FOGLEMAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE

REMANDED FOR SUPPLEMENTATION OF RECORD, REABSTRACTING, AND

REBRIEFING

Appellant Jan Clifton Doyle was convicted by a jury of first-degree battery. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and fined $15,000.00.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(j) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court, Mr. Doyle's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. Mr. Doyle's counsel's motion was accompanied by a brief purportedly discussing all matters in the record that might arguably support an appeal, including all adverse rulings, and a statement as to why each point raised could not arguably support an appeal. Mr. Doyle was provided with a copy of his counsel's brief and notified of his right to raise any points on his own behalf, and Mr. Doyle has filed a list of pro se points for reversal.

In the notice of appeal, Mr. Doyle's counsel designated the entire record for appeal. However, the record does not contain jury voir dire, opening statements, and closing

arguments. The court reporter noted in the record that these portions were not transcribed because no objections were made.

In Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001), we held that, "We are unable to conduct `a full examination of all of the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous' as required by Anders without the complete record before us on appeal." Id. at 280, 47 S.W.3d at 917. In that case, as in the case at bar, voir dire, opening statements, and closing arguments were excluded from the record, and for this reason the case was remanded to supplement the record. In a supplemental opinion on denial of rehearing, we reaffirmed our original decision. See Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 280A, 53 S.W.3d 48 (2001).

Pursuant to our precedent in Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001), we return this case to Mr. Doyle's counsel to supplement the record to include portions of the record originally omitted. In addition, we find that the abstract is flagrantly deficient and fails to conform with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) because, while each adverse ruling was abstracted, testimony that was necessary to give context to the adverse rulings was omitted. We also find that Mr. Doyle's counsel failed to adequately address each adverse ruling in his brief because he makes statements as to why each point cannot support a meritorious appeal without citing any relevant authority. For these reasons, we remand to supplement the record, and direct Mr. Doyle's counsel to file a substituted abstract and brief.

Remanded for supplementation of record, reabstracting, and rebriefing.

Neal and Crabtree, JJ., agree.