Whittier v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 183

Appellant Jeffrey Paul Whittier was charged with possession/distribution of child pornography, failure to appear, and failure to register as a sex offender; the child-pornography and registration counts were nolle prossed.
After a bench trial, Whittier was convicted of failure to appear (Class C felony) and sentenced to 119 months’ imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, and restitution for transport costs.
Whittier filed posttrial motions: trial counsel moved to reduce the sentence as unduly harsh; Whittier filed a pro se petition claiming the court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of failure to appear because the original charge was later dismissed following a granted suppression motion.
The circuit court denied both posttrial motions following a February 28, 2014 hearing; written order denying relief was entered the same day, and Whittier timely appealed.
Whittier’s appellate counsel filed an Anders/Rule 4-3(k) no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw, but the Court of Appeals found the brief deficient for failing to abstract the posttrial-hearing proceedings and failing to include key documents in the addendum.
The Court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, ordered substituted briefing (abstract, brief, and addendum) within fifteen days, and directed that counsel comply with Rule 4-3(k)(1); the court expressed no opinion on the merits of Whittier’s substantive claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of no-merit brief and counsel's motion to withdraw	Whittier's counsel asserted the appeal was wholly without merit and moved to withdraw under Anders and Rule 4-3(k)	State maintained proper procedure was followed (implicit); court reviewed compliance with appellate rules	Court denied motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing because counsel failed to abstract/posttrial-hearing testimony and omitted items from the addendum
Validity of conviction/jurisdiction (Whittier's pro se claim)	Whittier argued conviction for failure to appear was void because the original charge was dismissed after a suppression ruling	State opposed relief (denial of posttrial motion)	Not decided on merits; court required complete appellate record and brief before addressing substantive claim
Sentence severity	Whittier argued sentence was unduly harsh and should be reduced	State opposed sentence reduction (denial of motion)	Not decided on merits; court remanded for compliance with briefing rules before substantive review

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds that an appeal is frivolous)
Sartin v. State, 362 S.W.3d 877 (2010) (in no-merit criminal appeals counsel must abstract and discuss every adverse ruling)