ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION III

ANTHONY GRAVES

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-343

July 3, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NOS. CR-95-606, CR-95-784A]

HON. JOHN NELSON FOGLEMAN,

JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Anthony Graves appeals from the revocation of two suspended sentences. His attorney, Mr. Frank B. Newell, 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(j), 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(j)(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. Specifically, counsel has failed to discuss in the argument portion of his brief the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's finding that appellant violated the conditions of his suspensions; instead, counsel simply notes that sufficiency was not raised before the trial court. While it is true that the issue was not raised below, sufficiency of the evidence to support a revocation need not be argued in the trial court in order to be argued on appeal. See Barbee v. State, 346 Ark. 185, 56 S.W.3d 370 (2001); Rudd v. State, 76 Ark. App. 121, 61 S.W.3d 885 (2001).

Because counsel's brief is 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 direct that appellant's attorney file, on or before August 5, 2002, a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum that includes a discussion of why no meritorious ground for reversal can be raised regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.

Rebriefing ordered.

Robbins and Baker, JJ., agree.