Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 538 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CACR09-1031 KHAYAM THOMAS Opinion Delivered June 30, 2010 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. CR2008-2138] HONORABLE WILLARD PROCTOR STATE OF ARKANSAS JR., JUDGE APPELLEE MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; REBRIEFING ORDERED JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge Khayam Thomas was found guilty in a Pulaski County Circuit Court bench trial of breaking or entering and felony and misdemeanor counts of theft of property. A motion to suppress his identification was tried simultaneously during the guilt phase of his trial. He received thirty-six months’ supervised probation. 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, Thomas’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is without merit. The clerk of this court furnished appellant with a copy of his counsel’s brief and notified him of his right to file pro se points for reversal within thirty days. Thomas did not avail himself of this opportunity. The motion submitted by Thomas’s counsel was accompanied by an abstract and brief
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 538 purportedly referring to everything in the record that might arguably support an appeal. This brief is deficient. The argument section is incomplete in that it does not address the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, an adverse ruling that was preserved by a timely motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b). An Anders brief must contain a list of all adverse rulings and the argument section of the brief must contain an explanation of why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363, 47 S.W.3d 918 (2001). If counsel fails to address all possible grounds for reversal, this court will deny the motion to withdraw and order re-briefing. Sweeney v. State, 69 Ark. App. 7, 9 S.W.3d 529 (2000). Motion to withdraw as counsel denied. Rebriefing ordered. GLOVER and HENRY, 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.