2016 Ark. App. 347
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Kenyon Taylor was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, first-degree battery (reduced from attempted murder), and a felony firearm enhancement for shootings in June 2012; total sentence 55 years (40 + 5 + 10, consecutive).
- Taylor filed a timely appeal. His appointed counsel submitted a motion to withdraw and a no-merit (Anders-style) brief asserting the appeal had no meritorious issues.
- Counsel identified only denial of directed-verdict motions and denial of an objection to the firearm-enhancement instruction as adverse rulings.
- The Court of Appeals found additional adverse rulings in the record (including at least two state objections sustained during cross-examination) that counsel did not abstract or discuss, and that many abstracted rulings were inadequately discussed.
- The court concluded the no-merit brief was deficient under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) and Anders and therefore denied the motion to withdraw and ordered substituted briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Anders/no-merit brief | Counsel: appeal frivolous; only two adverse rulings; no meritorious claims | Taylor: filed pro se points (not detailed here) | Court: brief deficient; counsel failed to meet Rule 4-3(k)(1) requirements; rebriefing ordered |
| Abstraction of adverse rulings | Counsel: abstracted and discussed all adverse rulings (claimed) | Record: additional adverse rulings exist that were not abstracted | Court: counsel omitted at least two adverse rulings; must abstract all adverse rulings |
| Sufficiency of discussion/support for issues | Counsel: conclusory assertion that evidence supports verdict and sentencing; no arguable claim | Court/State: record requires specific showing of why issues lack merit | Court: discussion was conclusory and inadequate; counsel must show why each adverse ruling presents no meritorious basis for reversal |
| Relief requested (withdrawal of counsel) | Counsel: seeks leave to withdraw under Anders/Rule 4-3(k) | State: opposed implicitly by pointing to deficiencies | Court: denied motion to withdraw without prejudice and ordered substituted abstract, brief, and addendum within 15 days; State may respond and Taylor may file pro se points if no-merit brief again submitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel seeking to withdraw on grounds that appeal is frivolous)
- Sartin v. State, 362 S.W.3d 877 (Ark. 2010) (counsel must abstract and discuss each adverse ruling in a no-merit appeal under Rule 4-3(k))