Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 454 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CACR12-115 Opinion Delivered August 29, 2012 FREDDIE ATKINS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. [NO. CR-09-1545] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JOHN N. APPELLEE FOGLEMAN, JUDGE MOTION DENIED; REBRIEFING ORDERED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Freddie Atkins’s probation was revoked after the trial court found that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by failing to report to his probation officer. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Atkins’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, alleging that this appeal is wholly without merit. Atkins was notified of his right to file pro se points for reversal; however, he has not done so. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and order rebriefing. An attorney’s request to withdraw from appellate representation based on a meritless appeal must be accompanied by a brief that contains a list of all rulings adverse to his client that were made on any objection, motion, or request made by either party. 1 The argument 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 454 section of the brief must contain an explanation of why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. 2 This court is bound to perform a full examination of the proceedings as a whole to decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous. 3 Here, counsel has failed to follow the standards for submitting no-merit briefs as set out in Anders. 4 Therefore, we deny his motion to withdraw. Counsel is urged to read the requirements for submitting no-merit briefs as set out in both Anders 5 and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. 6 Motion denied; rebriefing ordered. WYNNE and GLOVER, JJ., agree. C. Brian Williams, for appellant. No response. 2 Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363, 47 S.W.3d 918 (2001). 3 Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001). 4 Supra. 5 Supra. 6 (2011). 2
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.