Slater v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 603

Donnie Slater was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and unlawful use of a communications device, sentenced as a habitual offender to 20 and 10 years respectively, with a 10-year enhancement because the offense occurred within 1000 yards of a daycare facility.
Appellant's counsel filed a motion to be relieved under Anders v. California and Rule 4-3(k), claiming no merit to the appeal; appellant was notified to file pro se points.
Slater filed pro se points contending the sentence might be illegal for not charging habitual-offender status.
State argued the sentence was legal and pointed to a charging instrument showing habitual offender status, but the referenced instrument was not in the addendum.
Trial court allegedly made a clerical error by not noting habitual-offender status on the judgment appealed from; the State sought relief and remand for correction.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the motion to withdraw counsel without prejudice and ordered substituted abstract, brief, and addendum within fifteen days to correct deficiencies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Slater's habitual-offender sentence is illegal for lack of proper charging.	Slater argues illegality due to not being charged as habitual offender.	State asserts charging instrument supports habitual offender status.	Illegality can be raised on appeal; relief denied without prejudice; substituted abstract ordered.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (necessitates appointed counsel's relief when meritless appeal)
Sartin v. State, 362 S.W.3d 877 (Ark. 2010) (requires adequate abstract and discussion for meritless-appeal claims)
House v. State, 722 S.W.2d 886 (1987) (illegality of sentence may be raised on appeal; cannot grant relief on weak briefing)