NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
JUDGE KAREN R. BAKER
DIVISION II
RANDY PHILLIPS
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
CACR02-1238
JUNE 25, 2003
APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR2001-538 & 539]
HONORABLE JOHN HOMER WRIGHT, CIRCUIT JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
Appellant, Randy Phillips, pled guilty to the charges of commercial burglary and aggravated robbery. A trial was held for sentencing, and appellant was sentenced by the trial judge to ten years for the commercial-burglary conviction and fifteen years for the aggravated-robbery conviction. The sentences were to run consecutively with a sentence previously imposed for revocation of his probation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(j) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, his attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on the ground that there is no merit to this appeal. Appellant was notified of his right to file a pro se list of points on appeal within thirty days; however, he did not exercise that right.
Counsel's motion was accompanied by a brief and abstract of the record purportedly referring to any matters in the record that might arguably support this appeal. Counsel asserts that no reversible error was committed in this case. The State did not file an appellee's brief in this case.
Appellant's counsel's brief notes the following two instances where the trial court ruledadversely to appellant: (1) denial of appellant's motion to suppress; and (2) ordering of the sentences to run consecutively.
In the early morning hours of August 10, 2001, appellant entered Trader Bill Outdoors in Hot Springs and removed several rifles from the store. That same day at approximately 6:30 a.m. appellant entered the Clarion Resort on Highway 7 South, also in Hot Springs, looked around, and then quickly left. Approximately ninety seconds later, armed with a rifle, he reentered the Clarion, jumped over the counter, and demanded that an employee give him all of the cash. The employee gave him the money, and appellant then jumped over the counter and exited the Clarion. The video surveillance camera captured appellant's entry with the rifle and his demand for cash.
Appellant proceeded with a motion to suppress three statements that were obtained while he was in custody. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial judge took the motion under advisement. However, before a ruling was made on the motion to suppress, appellant pled guilty to both commercial burglary and aggravated robbery. The trial judge sentenced him to ten years for the commercial burglary conviction and fifteen years for the aggravated robbery conviction. The sentences were to run consecutively with a sentence previously imposed for revocation of his probation.
We hold that appellant's attorney has failed to comply with the requirements of Anders v. California, supra, and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j), and we order rebriefing. Rule 4-3(j)(1) states, in 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.
(Emphasis added.)
The brief filed by appellant's attorney fails to conform to the requirements of this rule. The argument section fails to contain an argument for each adverse ruling made by the trial court. In addition, our review of the record reveals that the abstract section fails to include all rulings adverse to appellant made by the trial court. As stated above, Rule 4-3(j) requires appellant's counsel to abstract all adverse rulings and explain why each ruling would not support a meritorious appeal.
We find the no-merit brief of appellant's attorney to be deficient and order rebriefing on that basis. Appellant's attorney is instructed to rebrief this case within thirty days in accordance with Rule 4-3(j). Appellant will be allowed thirty days in which to file a pro se list of points on appeal, and the State will be allowed thirty days in which to file a responsive brief. Appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw is denied.
Rebriefing ordered.
Vaught and Roaf, JJ., agree.