ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
 

DIVISION III

JASON LAMONT LEE

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR02-1141

JANUARY 14, 2004

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[CR2001-2786]

HONORABLE JOHN BERTRAN PLEGGE, CIRCUIT JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Karen R. Baker, Judge

Appellant, Jason Lamont Lee, was convicted by a jury in Pulaski County Circuit Court of first-degree domestic battery, criminal use of a prohibited weapon, and theft by receiving. He was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for domestic battery, three years' imprisonment for theft by receiving, and three years' imprisonment for criminal use of a prohibited weapon. 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 lawyer 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; however, he has failed to do so. Although counsel's motion was accompanied by a brief referring to two matters in the record that might arguably support this appeal, counsel failed to abstract any matter which might support the appeal. Nonetheless, counsel states that no reversible error was committed in this case. We hold that Lee'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:

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.

The brief filed by Lee's attorney fails to conform to the requirements of this rule. The argument section fails to contain an explanation as to why one of the adverse rulings is not grounds for reversal. In addition, our review of the record reveals that the abstract section fails to include any adverse rulings to Mr. Lee made by the trial court. As stated above, Rule 4-3 requires Lee's counsel to abstract all rulings and explain why each ruling would not support a meritorious appeal.

We find the no-merit brief of Lee's attorney to be deficient and remand on that basis. Lee's attorney is instructed to rebrief this case within thirty days in accordance with Rule 4-3(j). Both Lee and the State will be allowed their thirty-day periods in which to file responsive briefs. Counsel's motion to withdraw is denied.

Rebriefing ordered.

Hart and Neal, JJ., agree.