ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DIVISION II

ROBERT LEE HUNTER, JR.,

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,

APPELLEE

CACR02-1036

                                       FEBRUARY 18, 2004

APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NO. CR2002-119 IV,

HON. EDWARD T. SMITHERMAN, JR, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Sam Bird, Judge

           This case is before us for the second time. In the unpublished opinion Hunter v. State, CACR 02-1036 (Ark. App. June 25, 2003), we found that counsel had failed to comply with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1); therefore, we denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing. Appellant’s counsel again has filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit, and again her motion is accompanied by a brief purportedly containing and addressing all rulings adverse to the defendant by the trial court. See Anders v. California, supra; Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1) (2003). Appellant has filed a pro se list of points pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(2), and the State has filed a brief responding to his points.            

        Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(j)(1) requires that the argument portion of counsel’s brief must list “all rulings adverse to the defendant” and must explain why each is not a meritorious ground for reversal. In the brief now before us, appellant’s counsel has addressed the rulings that were adverse to appellant and has explained why none constitutes a meritorious ground for appeal. We agree with the State that all points raised in appellant’s pro se brief either were not preserved for appellate review or do not constitute grounds for reversible error. From our review of the record and the briefs presented to us, we find compliance with Anders v. California, supra, and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j), and we find that the appeal is wholly without merit.  

           Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.            

           Stroud, C.J., and Vaught, J., agree.