Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 446 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CACR11-617 Opinion Delivered August 29, 2012 APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD DANIEL WEAVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANT [CR-2010-439 (II)] V. HONORABLE MICHAEL MEDLOCK, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge Appellant, Daniel Weaver, was tried by a jury and found guilty of the offense of rape. He was sentenced to twenty-nine years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. His attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief purportedly prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Mr. Weaver exercised his right to file pro se points for reversal. We return the case to Weaver’s counsel for rebriefing because the requirements of Anders, supra, and our Rule 4-3 have not been satisfied. Counsel’s brief addresses the denial of five motions filed at trial on behalf of Weaver; the denials also serve as the basis for Weaver’s pro se points. Counsel does not, however, list and address all the adverse rulings in this case, explaining how each such ruling could
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 446 provide no meritorious grounds for appeal, as required by Anders, supra, and our Rule 4-3. For example, our review of the record in this case reveals that appellant’s counsel moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case and again at the close of all evidence. Both motions were denied. Yet, in the Anders brief, no mention is made of these adverse rulings and no discussion is provided regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Counsel is advised to review thoroughly the Anders case and our Rule 4-3 concerning the requirements for submitting a no-merit brief. Our mention of particular adverse rulings that were not addressed in the brief does not in any way mean that there are not other adverse rulings that were omitted or that the record has been adequately abstracted and the addendum properly prepared. It is counsel’s responsibility to comply with the requirements for submitting a no-merit brief. Rebriefing ordered. WYNNE and BROWN, JJ., agree. Van Buskirk Law Firm, by: James M. Van Buskirk, for appellant. Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. -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.