Emmitt Riley v. State of Arkansas, 2019 Ark. 252

Appellant Emmitt Riley was convicted by a Drew County jury of first-degree murder (with a firearm) and tampering with physical evidence and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Riley’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit Anders brief and moved to withdraw under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k), asserting no meritorious issues on appeal.
The clerk notified Riley of his right to file pro se points; Riley did not file any pro se points.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas found counsel’s no-merit brief failed to comply with Anders and Rule 4-3(k) because it did not adequately discuss at least one adverse ruling (a relevancy objection sustained during redirect of Riley’s son).
The court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw without prejudice and ordered rebriefing, giving counsel 15 days to file a substituted brief; the State may file a response and Riley may file pro se points after rebriefing.
A two-justice dissent argued the majority misapplied Anders by requiring fuller briefing on a single relevancy ruling the majority did not identify as potentially meritorious.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s no-merit brief complied with Anders/Rule 4-3(k)	Ashcraft: brief showed no meritorious issues; move to withdraw permitted	State: (implicit) brief must meet Rule 4-3(k) standards	Court: brief noncompliant; rebriefing required and motion denied without prejudice
Whether counsel addressed all adverse rulings in the record	Ashcraft: identified rulings but concluded trial court acted within discretion	Court: counsel failed to discuss the relevancy ruling adequately	Court: counsel must explain why each adverse ruling is not meritorious under Rule 4-3(k)
Proper scope of Anders-derived Rule 4-3(k) obligations	Ashcraft/dissent: Anders requires identifying anything that might arguably support appeal, not full briefing of every adverse ruling	Majority: Rule 4-3(k) requires a list of adverse rulings with explanation why each is not meritorious	Court: adopt Rule 4-3(k) framework; counsel must adequately discuss adverse rulings
Whether the court can decide the appeal on the existing record without further briefing	Dissent: court can resolve the single relevancy objection with present record	Majority: inadequate briefing prevents safe resolution and counsel withdrawal	Court: order rebriefing to permit adequate discussion and preserve appellant’s rights

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes that counsel seeking to withdraw must identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal)
Her v. State, 457 S.W.3d 659 (Ark. 2015) (explains Rule 4-3(k) framework for constitutionally permissible no-merit briefs)
Sartin v. State, 362 S.W.3d 877 (Ark. 2010) (requires full treatment of adverse rulings in no-merit briefs or rebriefing will be ordered)
Dewberry v. State, 15 S.W.3d 671 (Ark. 2000) (ordered rebriefing in life-imprisonment contexts where no-merit brief was inadequate)
Skiver v. State, 954 S.W.2d 913 (Ark. 1997) (per curiam) (similar precedent ordering rebriefing for inadequate no-merit briefs)