ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
 

DIVISION IV

ROY LEE WALLACE

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR03-471

January 14, 2004

APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

CR-2002-727

HON. RALPH WILSON, JR., JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Larry D. Vaught, Judge

Appellant Roy Lee Wallace was charged with aggravated robbery and felony theft of property. A jury found him guilty of aggravated robbery and misdemeanor theft of property. He was sentenced to sixty years' imprisonment for the aggravated-robbery conviction, and the sentence for the misdemeanor theft conviction was merged with the aggravated-robbery conviction. Two revocation cases were heard by the trial court based on the evidence presented at the jury trial. The trial court revoked appellant's suspended imposition of sentences in CR1991-60 (robbery) and CR1991-62 (kidnapping) and sentenced him to serve twenty years' imprisonment for each offense. The sentences for the aggravated-robbery conviction and the revocations were to run concurrently. A timely notice of appeal was filed appealing only the aggravated robbery conviction.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j),appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit. The motion is accompanied by an abstract of the proceedings below, which purportedly includes all objections and motions decided adversely to appellant, and by a brief in which counsel attempts to explain why there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal. The clerk of this court provided appellant with a copy of his counsel's brief and notified him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal. Appellant did not file a pro se brief.

Anders, supra, requires this court to conduct a full examination of the proceedings to decide if the case is "wholly frivolous" after appellant's counsel submits a no-merit brief. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We undertake this thorough review of the full record regardless of whether or not appellant identifies the trial court's errors. Our review of the record revealed at least one adverse ruling, which was the denial of appellant's pre-trial request that his public defender be relieved, that was neither abstracted by appellant's counsel nor addressed in the argument section of the brief. In addition, counsel's attempt to explain why the abstracted adverse rulings would not support an appeal is inadequate because she makes conclusory arguments without citation to authority. Thus, we must deny appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw and remand for rebriefing for counsel to file a compliant brief.

We must also point out that brief filed in this case does not comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2. Rule 4-2(a)(8) provides that the addendum shall include a copy of the judgment from which the appeal is taken, along with any other relevant pleadings, documents, or exhibits essential to an understanding of the case and the Court's jurisdiction on appeal. In the present case, only two pages of the judgment and commitment order appealed from are included in the addendum. The notice of appeal is also not included.1 Appellant's counsel has also abstracted relevant pleadings, documents, and exhibits, instead of including them in the addendum as required by Rule 4-2(a)(8).

Because the no-merit brief filed in this case fails to comply with the requirements of Anders and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j), as well as Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2, we order rebriefing.

Rebriefing ordered.

Robbins and Crabtree, JJ., agree.

1 While the notice of appeal indicates that the aggravated-robbery conviction (CR-2002-727) is the only conviction being appealed, the record reveals that the court also heard two revocation cases simultaneously with the jury trial on the aggravated-robbery charge. The copy of the judgment and commitment order contained in the addendum only addresses the sentences appellant received for the revocations and not the aggravated robbery-conviction.