Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 644
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-16-852
Opinion Delivered: November 29, 2017
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
FREDRICK LEON WILSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
APPELLANT FOURTH DIVISION
[NO. 60CR-14-3266]
V.
HONORABLE HERBERT THOMAS
WRIGHT, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED;
REBRIEFING ORDERED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
Fredrick Leon Wilson was convicted by a Pulaski County jury of one count of sexual
assault in the second degree and sentenced to 144 months in the Arkansas Department of
Correction. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the
Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Wilson’s counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw on the ground that this appeal is wholly without merit. 1 The motion is
accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below, which purportedly
addresses all objections and motions decided adversely to Wilson, and a brief in which
counsel explains why there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal. The
clerk of this court provided Wilson with a copy of his counsel’s brief and notified him of
1
In Wilson v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 392, our court remanded this case for
supplementation of the record with the omnibus hearing, ordered rebriefing, and denied
counsel’s motion to withdraw. Counsel supplemented the record with the omnibus
hearing, and he received permission from our court to stand on his original brief.
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 644
his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal, but he submitted no points. Though
we commend counsel’s good work, we must deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and order
rebriefing because certain requirements of Anders and Rule 4-3(k) have not been satisfied as
set out below.
An attorney attempting to withdraw from a criminal appeal must list every adverse
ruling and explain why each adverse ruling provides no meritorious ground for reversal.
Wilson v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 392. Even a single omission from a no-merit brief requires
rebriefing. Id. Again, as noted previously, the manner in which those adverse rulings
addressed by counsel were excellent. However, our review of the record indicates several
adverse rulings were not addressed. For example, counsel noted two adverse rulings during
voir dire but there were three. There were other unaddressed adverse rulings in the
testimony of Alja Lane, Raquel Coleman, and Ahkeem Murphy.
For these reasons, counsel’s motion to withdraw must be denied. Counsel is directed
to file a substituted brief within thirty days from the date of this opinion. Counsel is familiar
with the rules and Anders, supra, and is encouraged to ensure no deficiencies, including but
not limited to those listed above, are present.
Motion to withdraw denied; rebriefing ordered.
GLADWIN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Robert M. “Robby” Golden, for appellant.
One brief only.
2