Weaver v. State
2014 Ark. App. 34
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Daniel Weaver was convicted by a jury of rape and sentenced to 29 years in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
- Weaver filed a no-merit appeal purportedly under Anders v. California and Rule 4-3(k), with pro se points for reversal.
- This court previously ordered rebriefing in Weaver v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 446, and again in Weaver v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 310.
- The court found counsel failed to satisfy Anders and Rule 4-3(k) by listing/addressing all adverse rulings and failed to properly abstract the record.
- The court reaffirmed the need for counsel to comply with Anders and Rule 4-3(k) and ordered substituted brief and brief submissions.
- The panel denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing with deadlines; the State may file a responsive brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether no-merit brief complied with Anders and Rule 4-3(k) | Weaver | Weaver's counsel | Counsel failed to satisfy requirements; rebriefing ordered |
| Whether omissions of adverse rulings require rebriefing | Weaver | State | Omissions persist; rebriefing necessary |
| Whether substituted brief should be filed under Rule 4-3(k) or meritorious grounds | Weaver | State | Not decided; substituted brief due |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (no-merit review requires frivolousness standard and proper briefing)
- Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16 (Ark. Supreme Court 2010) (single omission in no-merit brief requires rebriefing)
- Weaver v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 446 (Ark. App. 2012) (cautions on omissions in no-merit briefs and need for thorough addendum)
- Weaver v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 310 (Ark. App. 2013) (reinforces duties to address adverse rulings and proper record abstraction)