Opinion
CA CR 10-341
Opinion Delivered January 19, 2011
Appeal from the Clark County Circuit Court, [No. CR-2009-94], Honorable Robert Mccallum, Judge, Rebriefing Ordered; Motion to Withdraw Denied.
Appellant Charles Lanell Williams was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault on a family or household member pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-26-306(a) (Repl. 2006), which provides:
A person commits aggravated assault on a family or household member, if, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, the person purposely engages in conduct that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to a family or household member.
Mr. Williams was sentenced to six years in prison, with an additional five-year enhancement because the assault was committed in the presence of a child. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-702(a) (Repl. 2006). Mr. Williams now appeals from his conviction.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k)(1) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court, appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. Mr. Williams's counsel's motion was accompanied by a brief purporting to discuss all matters in the record that might arguably support an appeal, including the objections and motions made by appellant and denied by the trial court, and a statement of the reason each point raised cannot arguably support an appeal. Mr. Williams was provided with a copy of his counsel's brief and notified of his right to file a list of pro se points within thirty days, but he has declined to file any points. Because appellant's counsel has failed to address every adverse ruling as required by our rules for no-merit cases, we order rebriefing.
Mr. Williams was incarcerated in the Clark County jail when the assault was committed. The victim was his wife, Swanzettua Williams, who was at the jail that day for visitation. Accompanying Mrs. Williams was her teenage daughter and four-year-old son.
There was video surveillance of the encounter at the jail between the Williamses, and Officer David Buck reviewed the video recording and gave testimony. Officer Buck testified that during visitation the door separating the inmate and visitor was supposed to be locked, but that the jailer had accidentally left the door ajar. At some point, Mr. Williams emerged through the door and attacked Mrs. Williams. The video depicted Mr. Williams's hand moving in a stabbing motion toward the victim, and an ink pen was later recovered from the area of the attack. Mrs. Williams sustained injuries as a result of the assault, and was taken to the emergency room for treatment. Officer Buck testified:
I visited Mrs. Williams in the emergency room, where I observed her condition. She was bleeding from a cut on her eye. She had knots in her head. The finger on her left hand was torn open. She had an abrasion to her jaw. I believe she had another cut above her eye, around this side of her face, on the left side. She had a bloody area on the top crown, on the back. It appeared she hit the wall during the attack. The blood on the back of her head was 2 to 2 ½ inches in diameter, matted where it had clotted, but pretty big. There was quite a bit of blood. She had blood on her clothing.
Officer Buck interviewed both Williamses after the assault, and Mrs. Williams advised him that appellant became angry and attacked her because he thought she had been cheating on him with another man. According to Officer Buck, Mr. Williams admitted to attacking his wife, and he appeared remorseful. Officer Buck indicated that Mrs. Williams's four-year-old son was present when the assault was committed.
Mrs. Williams viewed the surveillance video and explained the circumstances of the attack. She testified that during the visitation her son mentioned another man, who was the person Mr. Williams believed she was cheating with. Mrs. Williams recalled the first blow hitting the left side of her face, and that after that "everything went so fast I can't remember." Mrs. Williams testified that she sustained a puncture hole to her head and a laceration near her left eye, and that she still has a visible scar. She also sustained other cuts, bruises, and abrasions.
Mr. Williams testified on his own behalf, and he acknowledged that he thought his wife was cheating on him and that he "just snapped." However, he said he was sorry for what he did and that he did not intend to inflict serious bodily injury to her.
In Mr. Williams's counsel's brief, his counsel has identified and addressed numerous adverse rulings and explained why none of these could support a meritorious appeal. The rulings addressed by appellant's counsel were as follows.
Prior to trial, Mr. Williams objected to being in shackles while being transported to and from the courtroom. The trial court stated that Mr. Williams would be freed from the shackles during the proceedings so that the jury would not see them. However, after a recess appellant moved for a mistrial on the basis that Mr. Williams had been escorted in shackles in front of the jury while they were outside the courtroom. That motion was denied. In Johnson v. State, 261 Ark. 183, 546 S.W.2d 719 (1977), the supreme court held that the act of bringing a defendant into the courtroom handcuffed is not prejudicial per se, and that we cannot presume prejudice. We will reverse the decision to grant or deny a motion for mistrial only when an abuse of discretion has been shown. Williams v. State, 371 Ark. 550, 268 S.W.3d 868 (2007). In the present case, there was a legitimate security risk given the severity of the attack by appellant on his wife, and because the video recording showed the assault and Mr. Williams admitted to attacking his wife, there was no indication that the jury's observation of the shackles affected the outcome of the trial.
Appellant's counsel also addresses the defense objection to introduction of the surveillance video, which was admitted during Officer Buck's testimony. Appellant's counsel asserts on appeal that the video was properly authenticated and admitted because Officer Buck was familiar with the camera system's operation and the area depicted on the recording. Moreover, any error in this regard would have been harmless because the video would certainly have been admissible during Mrs. Williams's testimony given that she was present when the recording was made.
Appellant's counsel next identifies three adverse evidentiary rulings. The first occurred when the victim was permitted over appellant's objection to describe the nature of her injuries. The next occurred when appellant's counsel was not permitted to ask questions of either the victim or Mr. Williams about alleged visits between them that occurred subsequent to the date of the attack. Finally, Mr. Williams was not permitted to elicit the name of the person with whom he thought his wife was having an affair. Evidentiary matters are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and rulings in this regard will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Grant v. State, 357 Ark. 91, 161 S.W.3d 785 (2004). Appellant's counsel submits that none of these evidentiary rulings constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion, and we agree.
Mr. Williams's counsel also asserts that there can be no meritorious challenge to the denial of appellant's directed-verdict motions because substantial evidence supports the verdict. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and affirm if the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. See Flowers v. State, 373 Ark. 127, 282 S.W.3d 767 (2008). Here, there was video surveillance showing appellant attacking the victim, which caused her to strike a concrete wall and sustain multiple injuries, including head wounds, for which she received emergency medical treatment. This conduct satisfied the elements of the offense of aggravated assault on a family or household member.
Although appellant's counsel has addressed most of the adverse rulings, one has been omitted from the brief. During the sentencing phase, Mr. Williams requested that the trial court consider running his prison time concurrent with the time he was already serving in prison, and that request was denied. Because this adverse ruling was not contained in the brief, we must order rebriefing.
A no-merit brief that fails to address an adverse ruling does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 4-3(k)(1) and must be rebriefed. Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16, ___ S.W.3d ___. We cannot affirm an appellant's conviction and allow an attorney to withdraw without adequate discussion as to why a particular adverse ruling by the trial court could not be meritorious grounds for reversal. Brady v. State, 346 Ark. 298, 57 S.W.3d 691 (2001). In addition to the brief being deficient for failure to address all adverse rulings, we also note that page twenty-one of the abstract has been inadvertently omitted, and we direct appellant's counsel to correct that deficiency when rebriefing the case. Accordingly, we order appellant's counsel to file a substituted brief and abstract containing and addressing all adverse rulings within fifteen days from the date of this opinion.
Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.
GRUBER and BROWN, JJ., agree.