Murray v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 431
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
CACR10-704
No.
Opinion Delivered
ELEA L. MURRAY, III
APPELLANT
June 15, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-07-1103]
V.
HONORABLE DAVID N. LASER,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED;
REBRIEFING ORDERED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
Elea Lee Murray, III, pleaded guilty on January 2, 2008, to possession of a controlled
substance, and he was sentenced to three years’ supervised probation. He was also ordered to
pay fees and costs at a rate of $25 per month. Less than a year later, the State successfully
petitioned to revoke Murray’s probation, and he received an additional three years’ supervised
probation and additional fines and costs. The trial court kept Murray on probation, but
ordered Murray to pay an additional $60 per month. Yet another revocation petition was filed
by the State on September 16, 2009. It alleged that Murray violated the terms and conditions
of his probation by (1) failing to pay his fines and costs as directed; (2) failing to report to
probation as directed; (3) failing to pay probation fees; (4) failing to notify the sheriff and
probation department of his current address and place of employment; (5) associating with
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 431
others violating criminal laws; and (6) committing the offenses of possession of marijuana with
intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, simultaneous possession of drugs and a
firearm, and disorderly conduct. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Murray’s probation
and sentenced him to 120 months in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court
Rule 4-3(k), Murray’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is
without merit. The clerk of this court furnished appellant with a copy of his counsel’s brief
and notified him of his right to file pro se points for reversal within thirty days. Murray did
not avail himself of the opportunity to submit pro se points. The State has not filed a brief.
The motion submitted by Murray’s counsel was accompanied by an abstract and brief
purportedly referring to everything in the record that might arguably support an appeal. The
brief, however, is deficient. The four-page abstract fails to conform to the requirements of
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 in that it does not adequately reflect all of the material
parts of the 77-page hearing transcript. Among the omissions are two adverse evidentiary
rulings. Further, the abstract is not only incomplete, but also it is often misleading.
Accordingly, we direct counsel to submit a substituted abstract that conforms with the
requirements of Rule 4-2.
We further note that an Anders brief must contain a list of all adverse rulings, and the
argument section of the brief must contain an explanation of why each adverse ruling is not
a meritorious ground for reversal. Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363, 47 S.W.3d 918 (2001). If
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 431
counsel fails to address all possible grounds for reversal, this court will deny the motion to
withdraw and order rebriefing. Sweeney v. State, 69 Ark. App. 7, 9 S.W.3d 529 (2000). We
hold that the argument section of the brief is also deficient in that it does not address the
omitted adverse rulings, and the single adverse ruling that it does discuss, the revocation of
Murray’s probation, is perfunctory at best. We therefore order Murray’s counsel to correct
this deficiency as well in his substituted brief. In ordering rebriefing, we do not preclude
appellate counsel from submitting a merit brief.
Motion to withdraw denied; rebriefing ordered.
G LADWIN and A BRAMSON, JJ., agree.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.