Elliott E. Bailey v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CACR07-1166
ELLIOTT E. BAILEY,
APPELLANT
Opinion Delivered 25 JUNE 2008
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2007-11(A)]
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE
THE HONORABLE JAMES O.
COX, JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED;
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
DENIED
D.P. MARSHALL JR., Judge
A jury convicted Elliott E. Bailey of second-degree battery of a police officer and
possession of cocaine. His lawyer has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(j), explaining
why all but one of the preserved arguments for reversal have no merit. Bailey did not
file any pro se points. Bailey’s lawyer also moves to withdraw.
We must order rebriefing. The governing rule requires counsel to list “all”
adverse rulings and explain why each would not merit reversal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 43(j)(1). The precedent requires full compliance with the rule. E.g., Brady v. State, 346
Ark. 298, 302, 57 S.W.3d 691, 694 (2001); Brown v. State, 85 Ark. App. 382, 393–94,
155 S.W.3d 22, 29 (2004). Counsel should file an updated brief within thirty days that
abstracts the evidentiary objection made at record page 76 and addresses that objection
in the argument. If counsel believes that it too presents no meritorious ground for
reversal, then a new motion to withdraw would be proper.
Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.
BIRD and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
-2-
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.
