ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION II

ERIC BROWN

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR02-502

January 15, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR 2001-3661 V]

HON. EDWARD SMITHERMAN, JR., JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Eric Brown pled guilty to two counts of sexual abuse and two counts of sexual solicitation of a child. His sentence was determined by a jury in a separate proceeding from which this appeal was taken. His attorney, Mr. Daniel D. Becker, 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. First, despite Mr. Becker's statement that there was only one adverse ruling in the sentencing proceedings, our inspection of the record has disclosed at least one other adverse ruling (to a relevancy objection concerning testimony of Mr. Douglas) that is neither abstracted nor discussed in the argument section of the brief. Second, although Mr. Becker has noted his objection to the introduction of a transcript of the hearing on appellant's change of plea on the grounds that the probative value of the exhibit was outweighed by the potential for prejudice, the assertedly prejudicial portions of that exhibit were not abstracted and were discussed only in general and conclusory terms that fail to explain why the adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.

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 February 14, 2003, a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum that includes a discussion of why no meritorious ground for reversal can be raised regarding the adverse rulings discussed above, and any others that counsel may discover.

Rebriefing ordered.

Hart and Bird, JJ., agree.