2023 Ark. App. 453
Ark. Ct. App.2023Background
- Stephenson pleaded guilty to delivery of methamphetamine or cocaine and received 121 months’ probation with conditions and fees (including $35/month supervision and $2,065 in fines/fees).
- The State filed a petition to show cause after alleged new offenses (forgery and possession) and failure to pay fines/costs.
- At the May 4, 2022 revocation hearing, probation/parole and a police officer testified about the arrests; Stephenson denied the allegations but admitted possessing pills without a prescription and not paying fees. He requested extended probation or house arrest as alternatives.
- The circuit court denied a continuance request, overruled a defense objection during cross-examination, found the State’s witnesses credible, concluded Stephenson violated probation, revoked probation, and sentenced him to ten years in ADC.
- Appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw with a no‑merit (Anders) brief claiming no arguable issues; the court of appeals found the brief deficient, denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, and ordered rebriefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Anders/no‑merit brief under Rule 4‑3(k) | Counsel: reviewed record and found no meritorious appeal | State: did not file responsive brief; court evaluated sufficiency | Court: brief deficient; motion to withdraw denied; rebriefing ordered |
| Denial of continuance of revocation hearing | Stephenson: (not addressed in brief) | Court: denied continuance due to timing and witnesses present | Court: counsel failed to address this adverse ruling; requires explanation on appeal |
| Overruled objection on scope of cross‑examination | Stephenson: (not addressed in brief) | Court: overruled defense objection | Court: omission of analysis of this adverse ruling requires rebriefing |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support revocation | Counsel briefly asserted evidence supported revocation but gave conclusory analysis | State: did not contest on appeal | Court: counsel’s conclusory explanation inadequate—must apply law and standard of review to facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural protections required when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- Moore v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 5 (Ark. App. 2022) (no‑merit brief must address every adverse ruling)
- Miller v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 299 (Ark. App. 2021) (Anders requirements tied to due‑process concerns)
- Pettigrew v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 336 (Ark. App. 2019) (rebriefing ordered where counsel failed to address adverse rulings)