Rainey v. State
439 S.W.3d 67
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- In Feb 2012 multiple items were reported stolen from two Cleveland County properties; Rainey was charged in May 2012 with two counts of breaking or entering and two counts of theft related to those incidents.
- The State’s key witness was Rainey’s cousin, Evines Rainey, Jr., an admitted accomplice who had pled guilty to related counts and testified that he and appellant committed the crimes together.
- At trial, Rainey moved for a directed verdict arguing the accomplice’s testimony was not sufficiently corroborated; the trial court denied the motion, finding “adequate, though very slight, corroborating evidence.” The jury convicted on all counts and imposed consecutive four-year sentences for each count.
- On appeal, Rainey’s counsel filed an Anders-style no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k), asserting no arguable issues, and provided Rainey with notice of his right to file pro se points; Rainey filed none.
- The appellate court concluded counsel’s brief failed to comply with Rule 4-3(k) because it did not analyze the adverse rulings (particularly the directed-verdict denial) against the applicable standard for corroboration, and therefore denied the motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of corroboration for accomplice testimony | State: There was adequate (though slight) corroborating evidence to submit the case to the jury | Rainey: Evines’ accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated to sustain conviction | Appellate court did not decide the merits; noted trial court found slight corroboration but remanded for proper appellate briefing on this issue |
| Adequacy of Anders / Rule 4-3(k) brief | Counsel: No meritorious grounds; withdraw under Anders/Rule 4-3(k) | Appellate court (effectively representing Rainey): Brief lacked required explanation of adverse rulings and failed to apply controlling standard | Motion to withdraw denied; ordered rebriefing because brief did not comply with Rule 4-3(k) |
| Whether the denial of the directed-verdict motion is frivolous | Counsel implied the denial was correct and not a basis for appeal | Rainey (through counsel’s filing) did not analyze the directed-verdict denial under the corroboration standard | Court held counsel failed to explain why the directed-verdict denial was not meritorious; required rebriefing with analysis |
| Standard for allowing appellate counsel to withdraw | Counsel asserted there were no non-frivolous points | The court: withdrawal is permitted only if appellate points would be wholly frivolous and the Anders/Rule 4-3(k) brief meets content requirements | Court applied the correct test and found counsel’s brief deficient; rebriefing ordered so the frivolousness question can be properly evaluated |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds the appeal is frivolous)
- MacKool v. State, 365 Ark. 416 (2006) (standards for corroboration of accomplice testimony; corroboration must independently tend to connect accused to crime)