Heath v. State
2016 Ark. App. 338
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Lashawn Heath appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence for residential burglary; this is the second appeal after remand in Heath v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 47.
- On remand the record was supplemented with a transcription of a custodial-statement recording that had been played at the revocation hearing.
- Appellate counsel filed a substituted brief styled as a no-merit (Anders) brief and moved to withdraw, asserting no meritorious issues and compliance with Anders and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1).
- The Court of Appeals found the brief deficient: it failed to list and brief all adverse rulings (notably an overruled hearsay objection), and portions of the abstract improperly used a Q&A format.
- Because Rule 4-3(k)(1) requires no-merit briefs to identify and explain why each adverse ruling lacks merit, the court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing within fifteen days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s no-merit brief complies with Anders / Rule 4-3(k) | Counsel (Heath) contended there were no meritorious issues and brief complied with Anders and Rule 4-3 | State argued the brief must comply with Rule 4-3(k)’s requirement to list and address all adverse rulings | Court: Brief noncompliant; motion to withdraw denied; rebriefing ordered |
| Whether all adverse rulings were included in the abstract/addendum | Counsel stated no objections were raised at hearing; only sufficiency was apparent | Record shows at least one adverse ruling (overruled hearsay objection) that wasn’t abstracted or briefed | Court: Failure to include adverse rulings violates Rule 4-3(k)(1); requires rebriefing |
| Whether abstract format was proper | Counsel used question-and-answer excerpts in the abstract | Court rules Q&A allowed only in extraordinary situations and was improperly used here | Court: Abstract format deficient; contributes to denial of withdrawal |
| Whether motion to withdraw should be granted despite deficiencies | Counsel sought permission to withdraw under Anders | Court evaluated compliance with Anders and Ark. R. 4-3(k) | Court: Denied motion; ordered substituted no-merit brief addressing all requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel must identify nonfrivolous issues and request permission to withdraw with supporting brief)
- Sartin v. State, 362 S.W.3d 877 (Ark. 2010) (no-merit briefs must abstract and address every adverse ruling; otherwise rebriefing required)