Robert L. Brown v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
SARAH J. HEFFLEY, JUDGE
DIVISION IV
CACR 07-1216
June 25, 2008
ROBERT L. BROWN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF CRITTENDEN COUNTY
[NO. CR-89-210]
V.
HONORABLE DAVID BURNETT,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
In January 1990, appellant Robert L. Brown pled guilty to the offense of burglary, for which
the trial court suspended imposition of sentence for twenty years. In June 2007, the State filed a
petition to revoke, alleging that appellant had violated the terms of the suspended imposition of
sentence by delivering cocaine on March 27, 2006. After a hearing, the trial court granted the
petition to revoke and sentenced appellant to ten years in prison.
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, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
on the ground that this appeal is wholly without merit. Rule 4-3(j)(1) requires this motion to be
accompanied by a brief which contains an argument section that lists all rulings adverse to the
appellant made by the circuit court with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a
meritorious ground for reversal. We order rebriefing because counsel has not fulfilled his obligations
under the rule.
The only issue discussed by counsel in the argument section of his brief is the sufficiency of
the evidence supporting the revocation decision. The abstract and the record also reflect two
objections made by appellant that were overruled by the trial court. Appellant objected to an officer
identifying appellant as the person who sold the cocaine, and appellant objected to the introduction
of the lab results showing that the substance delivered was cocaine. Counsel, however, has failed to
explain why these adverse rulings would not support an appeal. We cannot grant counsel’s motion
to be relieved or affirm appellant’s conviction without any discussion as to why a particular ruling
made by the trial court should not be a meritorious ground for reversal. Brady v. State, 346 Ark. 298,
57 S.W.3d 691 (2001). Therefore, counsel is ordered to file a substituted brief that complies with
the rule within thirty days from the date of this opinion. When the brief is filed, the motion and
brief will be forwarded by the Clerk to appellant so that he may raise within thirty days any points
he chooses in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(2).
Rebriefing ordered.
HART and BAKER, JJ., agree.
-2-
CACR 07-1216
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.
