Mack Leonard Eason v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, CHIEF JUDGE
DIVISION I
CACR07-467
MACK LEONARD EASON
APPELLANT
V.
June 25, 2008
APPEAL FROM CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO.
CR-2006-438]
HON. RALPH WILSON, JR.,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED;
REBRIEFING ORDERED
This is an appeal from an order revoking appellant’s probation and sentencing him to
thirty years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s attorney has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel
on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. We deny the motion.
We permit an attorney to withdraw as counsel for a defendant in a criminal case on
the basis that an appeal is without merit where the attorney has complied with the
requirements set by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court
Rule 4-3(j) and, after conducting a thorough examination of the full record of the
proceedings, we decide that the case is wholly frivolous. See Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363,
47 S.W.3d 918 (2001).
Here, appellant’s attorney has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California
and Rule 4-3(j), but, upon examination of the record, we cannot say that an argument going
to the sufficiency of the evidence would be wholly frivolous. Consequently, we deny
counsel's motion to withdraw, direct counsel to submit a brief that contains an adversary
presentation of the sufficiency issue and any others that he sees fit to argue, and direct our
clerk to establish a new briefing schedule. See Tucker v. State, 47 Ark. App. 96, 885 S.W.2d
904 (1994).
Motion to withdraw denied; rebriefing ordered.
HART and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.
-2-
CACR07-467
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.
