NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

SAM BIRD, JUDGE

DIVISION I

CHRISTOPHER N. JONES,

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,

APPELLEE

CACR00-1274

NOVEMBER 14, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NO. 99-329,

HON. JOHN FOGLEMAN, JUDGE

REMANDED FOR REBRIEFING

Christopher Jones was convicted of burglary in 1995, and sentenced to ten years' probation. In 1997, the State petitioned for revocation of his probationary sentence based upon an allegation of a subsequent burglary. The probationary sentence was revoked and Jones was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, five years of which were suspended. The State, in 2000, petitioned to revoke the suspended sentence, alleging that Jones had committed rape and had failed to pay fines and costs as required. After a combined revocation hearing and jury trial, Jones's suspended sentence was revoked. Jones's attorney, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(j)(3), filed a motion to be relieved as counsel and a brief stating that there is no merit to Jones's appeal of the revocation hearing. After being given notice of his opportunity to do so, Jones did not file points on appeal.

This case was previously before us in Jones v. State, No. CACR00-1274, 2001 WL

719044 (Ark. App. June 27, 2001). We ordered rebriefing due to counsel's failure to abstract objections and the court's rulings upon such objections. Counsel has rebriefed, but such brief is still deficient and we again order rebriefing.

A no-merit 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. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j); Adaway v. State, 62 Ark. App. 272, 972 S.W.2d 257 (1998). The brief prepared by Jones's counsel still fails to address all rulings made by the trial court which were adverse to Jones. Specifically, the brief abstracts, but fails to address, a ruling that limited inquiry into a prior conviction of John Cross, a sustained objection to a characterization of Jones's bail bond as "big," and a ruling that Jones opened the door for impeachment because he testified that he was in jail due to his inability to pay the bond amount.

Jones's counsel raises the sufficiency of the evidence as a potential argument on appeal, but does not reach a discussion of the reasons such argument would have no merit because counsel states that a sufficiency argument is procedurally barred due to the failure of Jones's trial counsel to move for a directed verdict pursuant to Miner v. State, 342 Ark. 283, 28 S.W.3d 280 (2000). Miner held that motions for directed verdict must be made at a revocation hearing in order to preserve a sufficiency challenge for appeal. However, in Barbee v. State, 346 Ark. 185, _ S.W.3d _ (October 11, 2001), our supreme court overruled Miner, holding that "Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1 and the requirements thereof,pertaining to motions for dismissal and directed verdicts, do not apply to revocation hearings."

Due to the failure to address all adverse rulings and the merit of a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we direct counsel to rebrief this appeal to address such rulings and arguments within thirty days in accordance with Rule 4-3(j). Both Jones and the State will be allowed thirty days from service of the brief in which to file responsive briefs. The motion to withdraw is denied.

Rebriefing ordered.

Jennings and Roaf, JJ., agree.