ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION II

ROBERT LEE TROTTER, JR.

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-306

January 16, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-2000-58]

HON. TED C. CAPEHEART,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Robert Lee Trotter, Jr., was convicted after a jury trial of commercial burglary and misdemeanor theft of property, and was sentenced to twenty years in the Arkansas Department of Correction and fined $1,000. His attorney, Patrick J. Benca, has moved to be relieved as counsel on grounds that the appeal is wholly without merit. We deny the motion at this time and order that the case be rebriefed.

Motions to be relieved as counsel for criminal defendants are governed by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(i), which was adopted by our supreme court in order to insure the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process set out in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rule 4-3(i)(1) provides in pertinent part:

A request to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit shall be accompanied by a brief including an abstract and Addendum. The brief shall contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit 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 and Addendum of the brief shall contain, in addition to the other material parts of the record, all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court.

In this case, counsel's brief fails to comply with the rule. First, at least one adverse ruling that is abstracted by counsel (the denial of appellant's motion for a continuance at the close of the State's case) is not discussed in the argument section of the brief. Second, three evidentiary matters are discussed in section V. of counsel's argument, but the objections and rulings underlying them have not been abstracted. Third, rulings on several other matters have been neither abstracted nor discussed (including, but not necessarily limited to, a pretrial motion in limine, an objection that a witness without personal knowledge implied that appellant was the perpetrator, an objection to a police officer's testimony concerning appellant's pretrial statement, and an objection to the introduction of an item allegedly stolen during the crimes).

Because counsel's abstract and brief are incomplete, we must order rebriefing. See Skiver v. State, 326 Ark. 914, 935 S.W.2d 248 (1996); Bigham v. State, 36 Ark. App. 22, 820 S.W.2d 462 (1991). Accordingly, we order appellant's attorney to file a new brief on or before February 15, 2002. In accordance with Rule 4-3(i)(2), appellant will have thirty days from that date to raise any additional points.

Rebriefing ordered.

Jennings and Vaught, JJ., agree.