Opinion
CA 09-86
Opinion Delivered March 17, 2010
Appeal from the Desha County Circuit Court, [JV-07-214-5], Honorable Teresa French, Judge, Remanded for Settling Record, and Rebriefing Ordered.
On January 6, 2010, this court ordered rebriefing in this juvenile-delinquency appeal due to (1) inconsistencies between the adjudication order and subsequent orders and (2) briefing deficiencies. K.L. v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 11. Our January opinion was not clear as to how and by whom the inconsistent orders should be rectified. However, we were very clear about the briefing deficiencies. The clerk of this court gave appellant's counsel thirty days for rebriefing; but no rebriefing has occurred in this matter. While civil cases generally may be affirmed for noncompliance under Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 4-2(b)(3) after being given time to correct deficiencies in the abstract and/or addendum, our supreme court has held that there is no material difference between adult criminal proceedings and delinquency proceedings for juveniles, and that the assistance of counsel is essential for a delinquency determination. S.S. v. State, 361 Ark. 42, 204 S.W.3d 512 (2005). To deny a criminal defendant's right to appeal due to the failure of his attorney to follow rules would violate the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Langston v. State, 341 Ark. 739, 19 S.W.3d 619 (2000). For this reason, we cannot and will not summarily dismiss this case due to the failure of appellant's counsel to follow the directives of this court.
Settling the Record
By this per curiam we now order the trial court to settle the record with regard to the inconsistent orders within thirty days from the date of this opinion.
Rebriefing
Appellant's counsel was originally given thirty days in which to rebrief this case; no rebriefing occurred; and counsel did not contact this court in any manner during that time. We now order counsel to rebrief this case within fifteen days after the record is settled and the supplemental record is filed with this court. For this task, appellant's counsel is directed, again, to the deficiencies noted in our January 6, 2010 opinion.