Lamiesha Toney v. State of Arkansas
2025 Ark. App. 3
Ark. Ct. App.2025Background
- Lamiesha Toney was convicted in the Jefferson County Circuit Court of second-degree murder and first-degree battery.
- Toney's appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw, arguing there were no meritorious grounds for appeal under Anders v. California and Arkansas Rule 4-3(b).
- Toney was informed of her right to file pro se points for reversal, but she did not do so.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the no-merit brief for compliance with Anders and Rule 4-3(b).
- The court found the brief deficient, specifically noting failure to address all adverse rulings and insufficient discussion of directed-verdict motions and their preservation of issues for appeal.
- The court ordered rebriefing and denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, giving deadlines for revised filings by both counsel and Toney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of no-merit brief under Anders/Rule 4-3(b) | No meritorious issues to appeal | Brief failed to address all adverse rulings | Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied |
| Failure to address all adverse rulings | Not all adverse rulings are relevant | Omitted adverse ruling on relevancy objection | Deficiency required rebriefing |
| Directed-verdict motion preservation | Motions sufficient for appeal | Did not sufficiently address preservation for lesser-included offenses | Must adequately address preservation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw on grounds that an appeal is frivolous)
- Jeffries v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 274 (reaffirms that all adverse rulings must be addressed in a no-merit brief)
- Davis v. State, 362 Ark. 34 (Ark. 2005) (directed-verdict motion can preserve challenge to lesser-included offenses if elements are sufficiently addressed)