Flemons v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 512

Aaron Anthony Flemons appealed after the Sebastian County Circuit Court found he violated terms of two suspended sentences and ordered an aggregate 30-year term in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
Counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit (Anders) brief asserting the appeal was frivolous.
Flemons filed pro se points for reversal arguing the sentence is illegal because the court exceeded the remaining terms on his prior suspended sentences.
The State responded to Flemons’s pro se argument and argued the point could not be raised for the first time on appeal.
The Court of Appeals reviewed counsel’s no-merit brief and found it deficient under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) for failing to discuss adverse rulings (including relevancy objections) and failing to address the merit of the illegal-sentence claim.
The court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing, instructing counsel on the required content for a compliant no-merit brief and noting that illegal-sentence claims (void sentences) may be raised for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel complied with Anders/Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k) for a no-merit appeal	Counsel argued the appeal is wholly frivolous and sought to withdraw	Court (State) did not directly contest compliance but responded on merits of pro se point	Court held counsel's no-merit brief did not comply with rule; rebriefing ordered and motion to withdraw denied
Whether Flemons’s illegal-sentence claim may be considered though not raised below	Flemons argued sentence is illegal because court exceeded remaining suspended terms	State argued the point was not preserved below and thus could not be considered	Court held illegal-sentence (void sentence) claims implicate subject-matter jurisdiction and may be raised for the first time on appeal
Whether adverse rulings were adequately identified and discussed in the no-merit brief	Implicitly: counsel should have listed and argued all adverse rulings	Counsel failed to discuss at least two sustained relevancy objections and other adverse rulings	Court required full listing/discussion per Rule 4-3(k)(1); directed counsel to include all adverse rulings on rebriefing

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedure and duties for counsel when filing a no-merit/Anders brief; requires thorough review and explanation of why any adverse rulings lack merit)