Reynolds v. State
2017 Ark. App. 397
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Christopher Reynolds was convicted by a Clark County jury of first‑degree domestic battery and sentenced to 14 years.
- Reynolds’s counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4‑3(k), filing an abstract, addendum, and a brief asserting the appeal was wholly without merit.
- Counsel identified two adverse rulings (denial of directed verdict and refusal to give a specific AMCI instruction) and argued neither supported reversal.
- The court’s review revealed multiple additional adverse rulings in the trial record that counsel abstracted but failed to discuss in the no‑merit brief, and one adverse ruling (pretrial bond‑reduction hearing relevancy rulings) that was not abstracted.
- Counsel also failed to address the posttrial denial of an appeal bond, though the order was in the addendum.
- The Court denied the motion to withdraw and ordered counsel to file a substituted brief within 15 days that complies with Rule 4‑3(k), giving Reynolds another opportunity to file pro se points and the State to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reynolds) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s Anders/Rule 4‑3(k) brief complied with required content | Counsel claimed only two adverse rulings existed and explained why they lacked merit | State argued counsel’s brief need only address the issues counsel raised as nonmeritorious | Court held brief was noncompliant because it failed to discuss multiple adverse rulings identified in the record |
| Whether counsel must discuss all adverse evidentiary rulings abstracted in the addendum | Counsel abstracted several objections and rulings but did not argue why they were not meritorious grounds for reversal | State relied on record; argued compliance required by rule and precedent | Court held each adverse evidentiary ruling that was abstracted must be discussed; failure requires rebriefing |
| Whether counsel must abstract and discuss pretrial rulings (bond‑reduction hearing relevancy objections) | Counsel did not abstract or discuss the pretrial bond‑reduction relevancy rulings | State noted such rulings are adverse and must be included per Rule 4‑3(k) | Court held those pretrial rulings must be abstracted and discussed in the no‑merit brief |
| Whether counsel must address posttrial rulings (denial of appeal bond) | Counsel included the order in the addendum but did not discuss it | State maintained the posttrial ruling is an adverse ruling that must be analyzed | Court held the posttrial denial of an appeal bond must be discussed; omission mandates rebriefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedure for counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is alleged to be frivolous)
- Sartin v. State, 362 S.W.3d 877 (Ark. 2010) (per curiam) (no‑merit brief must address all adverse rulings or rebriefing is required)
- Boen v. State, 336 S.W.3d 883 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (counsel must address circuit court’s denial of an appeal bond in a no‑merit brief)