NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

JAMES WHITSON DAVIS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-1389

NOVEMBER 20, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

CR-2001-162

HON. FLOYD G. ROGERS, JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

The appellant, James Whitson Davis, was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine and required to attend anger-management counseling. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), his attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief stating that the appeal is without merit. The clerk of this court furnished appellant with a copy of his counsel's brief and notified him of his right to file a pro se list of points for reversal; appellant has not filed a list of points. The no-merit brief, however, does not comply with the requirements of Anders, supra, and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j) because appellant's counsel failed to abstract and discuss all of the adverse rulings. Accordingly, we order rebriefing.

Appellant's conviction resulted from a May 23, 2001, incident. The morning prior, appellant telephoned the Van Buren Police Department to inform them that he would be repossessing a vehicle from Richard Muchmore. That same day, he broke into R.E. Dutton Company, Mr. Muchmore's place of employment and the location of the vehicle, and repossessed the vehicle. Appellant then called the Van Buren Police Department to inform them that he had repossessed the vehicle. The following morning appellant returned to the premises of R.E. Dutton Company to inform Mr. Muchmore that he had repossessed the vehicle. At the time of the incident, appellant was in possession of a shotgun, and evidence was presented that he threatened Mr. Muchmore with the shotgun. A jury trial was held on September 25, 2001, and appellant was found guilty of aggravated assault and received no incarceration, but was fined $5,000 and required to attend anger-management counseling.

Pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1), 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, which contains:

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.

See also Skiver v. State, 330 Ark. 432, 954 S.W.2d 913 (1997).

Our review of the record shows that the trial court made at least fourteen rulings that were adverse to appellant. Appellant's counsel, however, abstracted only four adverse rulings, and still fewer were discussed in the argument section of the brief. This court cannot affirm an appellant's conviction without any discussion as to why a particular ruling by the trial court should not be meritorious grounds for reversal. Dewberry v. State, 341 Ark. 170, 15 S.W.3d 671 (2000).

We cannot grant appellant's request to withdraw, and we remand for rebriefing. Counsel is directed to file a substituted brief which complies with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1) within thirty daysof this opinion. The substituted brief should contain an abstract of the material parts of the record, including an abstract of those portions of the appellant's trial if necessary to explain why an adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. When the brief is filed, appellant will have thirty days to raise any additional arguments in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(2).

Rebriefing ordered.

Robbins and Baker, JJ., agree.