Smith v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 577

Roddrick Larnell Smith pled guilty (Mar 2016) to furnishing prohibited articles and received ten years’ probation with conditions including no firearms and paying court costs ($50/month; all costs within six months).
State filed a petition to revoke probation alleging Smith possessed a firearm, was guilty of possession by certain persons, and failed to pay court costs.
At the Jan 2017 revocation hearing Smith reserved his right to remain silent on the firearm allegations but pled “true” to failure to pay costs; evidence showed a .22 revolver between the driver’s seat and console and unpaid costs remaining more than six months after the due date.
The circuit court found Smith violated probation by possessing a firearm and failing to pay costs and sentenced him to five years in the Arkansas Department of Correction plus five years’ suspended imposition of sentence after denying his request for probation.
Smith appealed; counsel filed a no-merit (Anders) brief seeking to withdraw, but failed to abstract or discuss the trial court’s adverse ruling denying Smith’s request for probation.
The Court of Appeals found counsel’s brief deficient for omitting that adverse ruling, denied counsel’s motion to withdraw without prejudice, and ordered substituted briefing within 15 days.

Issue	Smith's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel complied with Anders/Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k) by abstracting and discussing each adverse ruling	Counsel argued appeal was without merit and abstracted and discussed the court’s revocation rulings	The State relied on record supporting revocation and sentencing	Court held counsel failed to abstract/discuss the court’s denial of probation request; Anders requirements not met; rebriefing ordered
Whether revocation was supported by evidence of firearm possession	Smith reserved silence on firearm allegations; implied challenge to sufficiency	State presented officer testimony and discovery of a .22 revolver in vehicle	Court accepted evidence and affirmed finding that Smith possessed a firearm (ground for revocation)
Whether revocation was supported by failure to pay costs	Smith pled true to failure to pay costs	State showed unpaid balance remaining more than six months after due date	Court affirmed violation for failure to pay costs
Whether sentencing (incarceration vs. probation) was an appealable adverse ruling that counsel must discuss in a no-merit brief	Smith sought probation at sentencing and challenges denial	State recommended the challenged sentence and supported it in the record	Court treated denial of probation as an adverse ruling that must be abstracted and discussed; omission required rebriefing

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw via a no‑merit/Anders brief)
Sartin v. State, 362 S.W.3d 877 (2010) (requiring rebriefing when counsel fails to abstract and discuss each adverse ruling)