Jan Clifton Doyle v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE

DIVISION III

JAN CLIFTON DOYLE

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 01-367

APRIL 23, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-99-409]

HONORABLE JOHN NELSON

FOGLEMAN, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant Jan Doyle was convicted of first-degree battery after a jury trial in Crittenden County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and fined $15,000.

Appellant's counsel has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Rule 4-3 (j) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. This is counsel's third no-merit brief, the first two briefs having been remanded by this court.1 The motion to be relieved as counsel, as filed with each of the first twobriefs,

has been held in abeyance while counsel prepared a compliant brief. The current brief purportedly discusses all matters in the record that might arguably support an appeal, and a statement as to why counsel considers each point raised as incapable of supporting a meritorious appeal. Appellant was provided with a copy of his counsel's brief and notified of his right to file a list of points for reversal within thirty days. He filed no points, though he did file such points in response to the first no-merit brief filed.2 Consequently, the State has filed no brief but instead stands on the brief it filed earlier in response to appellant's points submitted in 2001. We deem the present brief submitted by appellant's counsel to be in compliance with the requirements of Anders, supra, and our rules of appellate procedure.

Based upon our review of the record and the briefs presented, we conclude that there has been compliance with Rule 4-3(j) and that the appeal is without merit. Counsel's motion to be relieved is granted, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Stroud, C.J., and Crabtree, J., agree.

1 The first brief was remanded for supplementation of the record because an incomplete record was lodged. The first brief was also remanded for reabstracting and rebriefing because counsel failed to include relevant testimony giving context to the adversely decided objections and failed to cite relevant authority to support why each point held no merit. See Doyle v. State, CACR01-367 (Ark. App. November 7, 2001). In the second brief, counsel ensured that a complete record was prepared and complied withthe requirement of citation to relevant authority, but counsel failed again to provide enough abstracted testimony to give context to the adverse rulings. See Doyle v. State, CACR01-367 (Ark. App. November 20, 2002).

2 The points raised by appellant in response to his counsel's first no-merit brief were either not preserved for review or would not support a reversal of his conviction.