William Pettigrew v. State of Arkansas
2019 Ark. App. 336
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- William Pettigrew pleaded guilty (2017) to possession of drug paraphernalia and received 36 months’ probation.
- The State petitioned to revoke probation (Jan. 2018), alleging absconding and failure to pay fines/fees/costs.
- At the revocation hearing, the circuit court found violations and revoked probation, sentencing Pettigrew to 72 months in the Department of Correction.
- Counsel filed an Anders/no-merit brief and moved to withdraw, asserting no arguable issues for appeal; Pettigrew received notice of right to file pro se points but filed none.
- The Court of Appeals found the no-merit brief failed to comply with Rule 4-3(k)(1) because counsel omitted discussion of at least two adverse rulings, including denial of Pettigrew’s request for reinstatement of probation or placement in drug court.
- The appellate court ordered rebriefing, denied counsel’s motion to withdraw without prejudice, and gave deadlines for substituted brief and pro se filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's Anders/no-merit brief complies with Rule 4-3(k)(1) | Counsel: brief shows no meritorious appellate issues; move to withdraw | State: urged compliance with procedural rules; argued Anders standards must be met | Court: brief noncompliant—failed to list/explain all adverse rulings; rebriefing ordered and withdrawal denied |
| Whether sufficiency of evidence supported revocation | State: evidence supported finding of probation violations | Pettigrew: challenged sufficiency (via counsel) | Court: counsel adequately addressed sufficiency; no reversible error found on that point |
| Whether denial of reinstatement of probation or drug court was appealable meritorious error | Pettigrew: requested reinstatement/drug court because he was willing/able to comply | Counsel: failed to explain why denial was not meritorious | Court: omission required addressing; could be a meritorious ground—must be briefed on rebriefing |
| Whether appellate procedure must allow pro se points after substituted brief | N/A | N/A | Court: ordered substituted brief; after filing, clerk will send materials to appellant; appellant given 30 days to file pro se points |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel who seeks to withdraw on appeal to submit a brief identifying any possibly meritorious issues and allowing the court to make an independent review)
- T.S. v. State, 534 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. App. 2017) (Anders requires full examination of proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous)
- Jester v. State, 553 S.W.3d 198 (Ark. App. 2018) (no-merit brief that fails to address an adverse ruling does not satisfy Rule 4-3(k)(1) and necessitates rebriefing)