From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. State

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III
Jun 21, 2017
2017 Ark. App. 392 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017)

Summary

In Wilson v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 392, 2017 WL 2665026 (Wilson I), our court remanded this case for supplementation of the record with the omnibus hearing, ordered rebriefing, and denied counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Summary of this case from Wilson v. State

Opinion

No. CR-16-852

06-21-2017

FREDRICK LEON WILSON APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

Robert M. "Robby" Golder, for appellant. No response.


APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH DIVISION
[NO. 60CR-14-3266] HONORABLE HERBERT WRIGHT, JUDGE REMANDED FOR SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE RECORD AND REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

Fredrick Leon Wilson was tried by a jury and found guilty of the offense of sexual assault in the second degree. He was sentenced to 144 months in the Arkansas Department of Correction, and a notice of appeal was timely filed. 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, Wilson's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, accompanied by an abstract, addendum, and brief, purporting to set forth all adverse rulings in this case and contending that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. The clerk of our court mailed a certified copy of counsel's motion and brief to Wilson in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k)(2), informing him of his right to file pro se points for reversal. Wilson filed no points. We deny the motion to withdraw and remand the case for supplementation of the record and rebriefing because the requirements of Anders, supra, and Rule 4-3(k) have not been satisfied.

An attorney attempting to withdraw from a criminal appeal must list every adverse ruling and explain how each ruling could provide no meritorious ground for reversal. Weaver v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 310. Even a single omission from a no-merit brief necessarily requires rebriefing. Id.

Here, counsel's presentation of the adverse rulings he addressed was exemplary. However, the record reveals several unabstracted pretrial motions that apparently were addressed in an omnibus hearing, but the omnibus hearing was not included in the record and, consequently, not abstracted or addressed in the brief. We have no way of knowing if the motions were decided in Wilson's favor or adversely to him. Without the full presentation and discussion of the rulings on these motions, we are unable to determine if an appeal in this case would be wholly without merit.

Counsel is directed to supplement the record within fifteen days from the date of this opinion, and file a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum within fifteen days thereafter. In addition, we always encourage counsel to carefully review the rules and Anders, supra, to ensure that no other deficiencies exist.

Remanded for supplementation of the record and rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.

ABRAMSON and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.

Robert M. "Robby" Golder, for appellant.

No response.


Summaries of

Wilson v. State

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III
Jun 21, 2017
2017 Ark. App. 392 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017)

In Wilson v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 392, 2017 WL 2665026 (Wilson I), our court remanded this case for supplementation of the record with the omnibus hearing, ordered rebriefing, and denied counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Summary of this case from Wilson v. State

In Wilson v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 392, our court remanded this case for supplementation of the record with the omnibus hearing, ordered rebriefing, and denied counsel's motion to withdraw.

Summary of this case from Wilson v. State
Case details for

Wilson v. State

Case Details

Full title:FREDRICK LEON WILSON APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

Court:ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III

Date published: Jun 21, 2017

Citations

2017 Ark. App. 392 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. State

The motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below, which purportedly addresses…

Wilson v. State

This is the third time this case has been before our court. In Wilson v. State , 2017 Ark. App. 392, 2017 WL…