Thompson v. State
2014 Ark. 435
Ark.2014Background
- Edward Thompson III was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, felony theft, and misdemeanor theft and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment.
- Thompson appealed; appellate counsel Patrick Benca was appointed after trial counsel was relieved.
- Benca sought extensions and filed a no-merit Anders brief and later a substituted brief, but the Arkansas Supreme Court found the substituted brief deficient and ordered rebriefing and submission of a substituted abstract and addendum.
- The court directed counsel to address (1) an issue improperly characterized in the substituted brief regarding trial-court objections and (2) a potential ex parte communication between the trial judge and a juror revealed in the settled record.
- Benca failed to timely incorporate the supplemental record, did not file a substituted abstract including the May 1, 2014 settling hearing, and declined to address the ex parte issue; the court concluded he did not comply with its prior per curiam directives.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court relieved Benca as counsel, referred him to the Committee on Professional Conduct, appointed new appellate counsel (Rosalyn Watts), and ordered rebriefing; related pro se and State motions were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Thompson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel complied with Anders and Rule 4-3(k) when seeking to withdraw via a no-merit brief | Benca (on Thompson's behalf) submitted a no-merit Anders brief and later a substituted brief, implying no further briefing was necessary | Court insisted compliance with Anders/Rule 4-3(k) and ordered fuller rebriefing | Court held counsel failed to comply and that the brief was inadequate; ordered rebriefing |
| Whether counsel properly addressed the trial-court-objection issue previously misconstrued | Counsel attempted to clarify the objection in his substituted brief | State opposed relief based on briefing as submitted | Court found counsel’s attempt unsatisfactory and required rebriefing on that issue |
| Whether the ex parte juror communication issue raised by the supplemental record was addressed | Counsel argued the juror’s question (whether jurors could ask questions) did not need briefing and relied on prior brief | State had opportunity to respond if issue briefed | Court held counsel should have briefed the ex parte issue per its order; failure to do so was noncompliance |
| Appropriate remedy for counsel’s noncompliance and inadequate briefing | Thompson sought meaningful appellate representation | State had no objection to filing supplemental abstract/brief; court required proper briefing | Court relieved and replaced counsel, referred him to disciplinary committee, and set a new briefing schedule |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (permitting withdrawal of appointed counsel only after meeting procedural protections)
- Thompson v. State, 2013 Ark. 271 (Ark. 2013) (appointment/relief of appellate counsel noted)
- Thompson v. State, 2014 Ark. 79 (Ark. 2014) (ordered rebriefing and required address of ex parte juror communication)
- Thompson v. State, 2014 Ark. 229 (Ark. 2014) (addressed briefing deadlines and record-settling schedule)