Rimmer v. State
2014 Ark. App. 30
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- In August 2011, Rimmer pled guilty to possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture meth, a Class D felony, and was placed on two years’ probation with fines totaling $1,395 and monthly payments starting Sept. 11, 2011.
- In April 2012, the State petitioned to revoke probation, alleging violations including nonpayment, failure to report, failure to pay probation fees, failure to notify the sheriff of address/employment, and departing residence without permission.
- A July 5, 2012 revocation hearing resulted in a finding that Rimmer violated probation conditions and a sentence of three years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction upon revocation, with fines and costs satisfied.
- Rimmer’s counsel filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw, but the court ordered rebriefing and denied the withdrawal motion due to noncompliance with Rule 4-3(k) and Anders requirements.
- This court directed substituted briefing within 15 days and indicated that, if a no-merit brief was filed, Rimmer would have 30 days to raise any points upon which relief could be sought, with the State given an opportunity to respond.
- The opinion discusses the standard for reviewing no-merit briefs and emphasizes strict compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and Anders in no-merit appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the no-merit brief comply with Anders and Rule 4-3(k)? | Rimmer argues counsel failed to cite Anders and the proper standard. | State contends the briefing must strictly follow Anders/R 4-3(k) framework and requires rebriefing. | Rebriefing ordered; withdrawal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (no-merit briefs must adhere to standard procedures and provide a meaningful basis for appeal)
- Soto v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 619 (Ark. App. 2013) (emphasizes requirements for no-merit briefing under Rule 4-3(k))
- Hollins v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 695 (Ark. App. 2013) (reaffirming need for proper no-merit brief and compliance with rules)
- Eads v. State, 47 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. App. 2001) (standard for relief from counsel in no-merit appeals relies on no-frivolity analysis)