Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 75 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CACR 09-1250 Opinion Delivered February 6, 2013 SHANNON WILLIAMS APPEAL FROM THE GREENE APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, [NO. CR-2008-468] V. HONORABLE DAVID LASER, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; MYLISSIA M. BLANKENSHIP RELIEVED AS COUNSEL; ROBBY GOLDEN APPOINTED TO REPRESENT APPELLANT WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge On June 23, 2009, a Greene County jury found Shannon Williams guilty of one count of rape and sentenced him to fifteen years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. His attorney, Mylissia M. Blankenship, has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, citing an inability to find a meritorious ground for reversal, and has submitted a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California 1 and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k). Williams has filed no pro se points. This is the fourth time this case has been before us. Each time we have been unable to grant counsel’s motion due to deficiencies. 2 We are, again, unable to reach the merits and grant counsel’s motion because she has submitted another noncompliant brief. Counsel has 1 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 See Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 41; Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 643; Williams v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 113.
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 75 been given a number of opportunities and extensions to file a compliant brief. However, she has still failed to address all of the adverse rulings made by the trial court. We do not know why Ms. Blankenship has persistently failed to comply with Anders, Rule 4-3(k), and our prior orders in this case. We think that justice requires that we relieve Ms. Blankenship as appellant’s counsel. We appoint Robby Golden to represent Williams in this appeal. Williams’s substituted counsel will not be limited to the submission of a no-merit brief, if, after inspection of the record, he concludes that an appeal on the merits is warranted. Motion to withdraw denied; Mylissia M. Blankenship relieved as counsel; Robby Golden appointed to represent appellant. HIXSON and WOOD, JJ., agree. 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.