Opinion
No. CR-12-324
01-22-2014
LAWRENCE SCHMITT APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
Herbert C. Southern, for appellant. No response.
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-10-0783-1]
HONORABLE ROBIN F. GREEN,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
In April 2011, appellant Lawrence Schmitt pleaded guilty to twenty counts of possession of child pornography, a Class C felony. On September 8, 2011, he was sentenced in a separate proceeding before a jury to four years' imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of $1000 on each count, with each sentence to run consecutively, for a total of eighty years' imprisonment and fines of $20,000. Pursuant to Anders v. California and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k), Schmitt's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that an appeal would be wholly without merit. We affirm and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
This is the third time this case has been before us. In our first opinion, we noted that counsel had failed to identify, abstract, and discuss the circuit court's denial of a defense motion for no prison sentence and a nominal fee. The directed-verdict motion was abstracted following remand; however, counsel failed to abstract the renewal of the motion and the court's denial. Additionally, the jury-verdict form for Count 1 was not included in the record or the addendum. Therefore, we remanded to supplement the record and for rebriefing.
See Schmitt v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 20, and Schmitt v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 489.
An attorney's request to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit must be accompanied by a brief that contains a list of all rulings adverse to appellant and an explanation as to why each ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. This court is bound to perform a full examination of the proceedings as a whole to decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Our supreme court has held that the failure to abstract and discuss any adverse ruling in an Anders brief necessitates rebriefing.
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) (2012).
Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001).
Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16, 362 S.W.3d 877.
--------
Here, based on our review of the record for potential error pursuant to Anders and the requirements of Rule 4-3(k), we hold that an appeal of appellant's sentence would be entirely without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
GLADWIN, C.J., and WOOD, J., agree.
Herbert C. Southern, for appellant.
No response.