McPherson v. State
2017 Ark. App. 21
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant James Lee McPherson was convicted by a Faulkner County jury of three counts of rape and sentenced to a total of 900 months' imprisonment.
- Appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k) and Anders v. California, asserting the appeal was wholly without merit.
- Counsel served appellant and the clerk mailed the motion/brief to appellant; appellant did not file pro se points for reversal.
- The clerk did not receive a response brief from the Attorney General because counsel asserted the appeal was frivolous.
- The Court of Appeals found the no-merit submission deficient: the abstract omitted several adverse rulings and essential documents, the addendum lacked certain pleadings and exhibits, and counsel failed to identify and address every adverse ruling as required.
- The court ordered rebriefing, denied counsel’s motion to withdraw without prejudice, and directed counsel to file a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum within 15 days; the State may file a response after rebriefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k) / Anders by including a complete abstract/addendum | Counsel contended the appeal was wholly without merit and provided an abstract/addendum | Court found counsel omitted large portions of the record and did not include all adverse rulings or required exhibits | Counsel did not comply; rebriefing ordered and motion to withdraw denied without prejudice |
| Whether counsel sufficiently addressed every adverse ruling in the argument section | Counsel grouped adverse rulings by category and offered explanations why none warranted reversal | Court required each adverse ruling be listed and individually addressed | Grouping was insufficient; specific omitted rulings noted and must be addressed on rebriefing |
| Whether the addendum contained all relevant pleadings, orders, and exhibits essential to understanding the case | Counsel submitted an addendum but omitted the State's pretrial response to the motion to suppress and trial exhibits | Court maintained Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A) requires all relevant materials be included | Addendum deficient; counsel must include missing pleadings and exhibits on rebriefing |
| Whether the procedural requirements for withdrawing on no-merit grounds were satisfied | Counsel served appellant and mailed the filings; argued substantive compliance | Court applied precedent emphasizing strict compliance to protect rights and permit full appellate review | Procedural compliance was inadequate; rebriefing ordered and counsel's withdrawal denied without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton v. State, 94 Ark. App. 229, 228 S.W.3d 524 (Ark. App. 2006) (counsel must follow proper procedure when moving to withdraw)
- Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (Ark. App. 2001) (court and counsel must fully examine the proceedings to determine frivolity)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure required when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds that appeal is frivolous)
- Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16 (Ark. 2010) (no-merit appeals require abstraction and discussion of every adverse ruling)
- Whittier v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 183 (Ark. App. 2015) (clarifies whether appeal should be addressed on merits or under Rule 4-3(k))
- Cox v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 132 (Ark. App. 2015) (discusses briefing procedure and opposing brief opportunity after rebriefing)
- Sims v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 11 (Ark. App. 2015) (addendum must contain all relevant pleadings and exhibits essential to understanding the case)