ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JUDGE JOSEPHINE LINKER HART

DIVISION IV

BENJAMIN OLIVER

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR02-960

June 25, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR 99-4342]

HONORABLE JOHN W. LANGSTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j) (2003), counsel for Benjamin Oliver, appellant, seeks to be relieved as counsel, alleging that this appeal is wholly without merit. Because counsel failed to address the issue of whether appellant's statement to the police was voluntary, we order rebriefing.

Appellant previously appealed his first-degree murder conviction in Oliver v. State, 77 Ark. App. 202, 72 S.W.3d 547 (2002). He argued on appeal that the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence his statement to the police because a material witness was not available to testify at the hearing on his motion to suppress the statement. We agreed with appellant and ordered a limited remand of the case so that the circuit court could hold a new hearing on appellant's motion to suppress the statement.

Following our limited remand, the circuit court held another hearing, and in its written order, the court denied appellant's motion to suppress. On appeal from that order,

counselfiled a brief asserting that there is no merit to the appeal.

In counsel's brief, counsel asserts that the testimony introduced at the hearing on remand does not justify a reversal of the circuit court's previous denial of appellant's motion to suppress. We note, however, that counsel did not present to this court an abstract of the testimony introduced at the first hearing on appellant's motion to suppress or discuss whether that testimony would warrant a reversal of the circuit court's decision. Thus, counsel failed to address whether, after considering all the evidence heard on appellant's motion to suppress, the circuit court's ruling denying the motion was correct. Rule 4-3(j) requires that counsel explain "why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal," and provide an abstract that contains all "material parts of the record." Because appellant failed to provide an abstract of testimony taken at the earlier hearing or explain why, after considering all of the evidence, the circuit court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress does not provide a meritorious ground for reversal, we must remand for rebriefing.

Rebriefing ordered.

Pittman and Robbins, JJ., agree.