Kou Her v. State, 457 S.W.3d 659

After a three-day jury trial, Kou Her was convicted of first-degree murder (life), aggravated residential burglary (life), attempted kidnapping (30 years), first-degree battery (15 years), and aggravated assault (2 years); all sentences run consecutively.
Counsel filed an Anders-type no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw under Arkansas Rule 4-3(k) after exhausting trial proceedings.
Her later filed a pro se brief seeking reversal under Rule 4-3(k)(2).
The majority holds that Burnett’s brief did not comply with Rule 4-3(k)(l) because it failed to address adverse rulings and omitted sufficiency/-directed-verdict issues; independent review under 4-3(i) remains separate from Anders duties.
The court orders rebriefing, requiring replacement briefing within 15 days, with Her allowed to respond within 30 days; the withdrawal motion is denied without prejudice.
The dissent would grant review under mandatory Rule 4-3(i) review despite incomplete Anders briefing and would allow continuation of the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 4-3(k)(l) was satisfied by Burnett’s brief	Her	Her	No; rebriefing required
Whether adverse rulings were adequately addressed in the no-merit brief	Her	Burnett failed to list/address adverse rulings	No; need to address all adverse rulings
Whether James v. State remains valid law given Anders	Her	Majority overrules James to align with Anders	James overruled; Anders governs
Whether the court can perform Rule 4-3(i) review without proper Anders briefing	Her	Anders and Rule 4-3(k) are distinct; review appropriate	Independent 4-3(i) review cannot substitute for Anders duties; but rebriefing required
Whether the appeal should be heard despite no-merit briefing failures	Her	Counsel’s failure warrants rebriefing	Rebriefing ordered; withdrawal denied without prejudice

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (no-merit procedure requires advocate’s brief and court review)
Sartin v. State, 362 S.W.3d 877 (Ark. 2010) (no-merit brief must address all adverse rulings; otherwise rebriefing required)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (appellate review requires counsel’s brief; withdrawal without briefing is improper)
Gilliam v. State, 808 S.W.2d 738 (Ark. 1991) (recognizes independent appellate review following Anders procedure)
James v. State, 372 S.W.3d 800 (Ark. 2010) (footnote discusses adverse rulings; later deemed inconsistent with Anders by majority)
Thompson v. State, 2014 Ark. 79 (Ark. 2014) (no-merit briefing issues in life-imprisonment cases require consideration)