 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ewing v. State6/29/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant Charles Ewing Jr. entered a plea of guilty after violating the state's hot-check law. As a result, Ewing was placed on probation for sixty months, subject to certain conditions, including the requirement that he not commit an offense punishable by imprisonment and that he refrain from drug use. Thereafter, the State filed a petition for revocation alleging that Ewing had admitted using drugs during his probation and had been arrested for several misdemeanors. Ewing was subsequently convicted of obstruction of governmental operations, theft of property, driving while intoxicated, and failure to appear. After a hearing on the matter, Ewing's probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to eighty-four months' imprisonment.
Ewing's attorney has moved to be relieved as counsel on grounds that the appeal is wholly without merit pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 4-3(j)(1), and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rule 4-3(j)(1) provides in pertinent part:
A request to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit shall be accompanied by a brief including an abstract and Addendum. The brief shall contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court on all objections, motions and requests made by either party with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. The abstract and Addendum of the brief shall contain, in addition to the other material parts of the record, all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court.
In this case, counsel's brief fails to comply with the rule. Specifically, counsel failed to present an argument supporting each adverse ruling made by the trial court. Additionally, a review of the record reveals that the abstract section fails to include all rulings adverse to Ewing. Further, counsel's brief did not contain all material parts of the record as required by Rule 4-3(j). Specifically, several essential documents-including, but not limited to, the terms and conditions of Ewing's probation and the State's petition to revoke-were omitted from the Addendum. Because counsel's brief is incomplete, we must deny counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel and order rebriefing. See Skiver v. State, 326 Ark. 914, 935 S.W.2d 248 (1996).
Motion to withdraw as counsel is denied.
Rebriefing ordered.
Pittman, C.J., and Robbins, J., agree.
|