Stockton v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 25

Jeremy Stockton appealed the November 5, 2012 order revoking his suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) on five counts across four cases (theft by deception; second-degree forgery; theft by receiving; residential burglary; theft of property).
An amended sentencing order correcting clerical errors was entered November 14, 2012.
Stockton’s counsel filed a no-merit (Anders-style) brief and a motion to withdraw, asserting no nonfrivolous issues on appeal.
The Court of Appeals found the brief and addendum noncompliant with Arkansas Supreme Court Rules 4-2(a) and 4-3(k)(1).
Deficiencies included omission of the appealed sentencing order(s), missing judgment/disposition and SIS terms for one case (CR-2004-959), and failure to list/explain two adverse rulings made during defense counsel’s witness examination.
The court ordered rebriefing and denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, giving 15 days to file substituted brief and addendum and warning the listed defects were not exhaustive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s Anders-style brief complied with appellate rules	Stockton’s counsel asserted there were no nonfrivolous issues and moved to withdraw under Anders	The State argued appeal record and brief must comply with Rule 4-2 and Rule 4-3(k)(1) (implicit: defects render Anders motion premature)	Court held brief noncompliant and ordered substituted brief; motion to withdraw denied
Whether the addendum included required documents	Stockton’s counsel omitted the sentencing order(s) and SIS terms for CR-2004-959	Counsel implied the provided materials sufficed for appellate review	Court held required documents missing and ordered addendum corrected
Whether all adverse rulings were listed and addressed in the no-merit brief	Counsel submitted an argument section but failed to address two adverse rulings during defense examination	Counsel maintained a no-merit position but did not discuss those rulings as required	Court held omission violated Rule 4-3(k)(1) and required rebriefing
Whether the appellate filing deadline for substitution should be set	Counsel sought to proceed with current brief and withdrawal	The State sought compliance with briefing rules before considering withdrawal	Court ordered substituted brief within 15 days and warned counsel to review record and rules

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (permitting counsel to seek withdrawal only after filing a brief demonstrating that the appeal is frivolous and complying with procedural safeguards)