ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JULY 5, 2002

KENNETH LAMAR TURNER

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 01-459

PRO SE MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PRO SE APPELLANT'S BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 98-653]

MOTION DENIED

In 1998, Kenneth Lamar Turner was found guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property and sentenced to a term of sixty-five years' imprisonment for aggravated robbery and one year's imprisonment in the county jail for theft. The court of appeals affirmed. Turner v. State, CACR 99-428 (Ark. App. March 15, 2000).

Turner subsequently filed in the trial court a timely petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 and a motion for new trial, challenging the judgment. After appointing counsel for Turner and holding an evidentiary hearing on the Rule 37 petition and the motion for new trial, the court denied both the petition and the motion.

The record in the appeal from the order has been lodged in this court by the attorney appointed by the trial court to represent the appellant. Counsel filed a brief in the appealpursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and our Rule 4-3(j)(1), contending that the appeal is wholly without merit. Appellant was provided a copy of his attorney's brief in accordance with Rule 4-3(j)(2), and he filed pro se points for reversal.

Now before us is appellant's pro se motion for leave to also file a supplemental appellant's brief. Rule 4-3(j)(2) provides that the appellant may file any points for reversal he desires, and appellant availed himself of that provision of the rule. There is no provision in the rule for the appellant to also file a supplemental brief. It is assumed that the procedure set out in our rule and Anders, supra, which has been followed in this appeal, will afford an appellant ample opportunity to be heard. We find no cause to depart from the prevailing rules of procedure and allow appellant to file a supplemental pro se brief.

Motion denied.