Jayson Wayne Carroll v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CACR 07-941
Opinion Delivered
JAYSON WAYNE CARROLL
APPELLANT
JUNE 25, 2008
APPEAL FROM THE COLUMBIA
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-06-55-5]
V.
HONORABLE HAMILTON H.
SINGLETON, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
JOHN B. ROBBINS, Judge
Appellant Jayson Wayne Carroll was convicted by a jury of second-degree escape, and
was sentenced as a habitual offender to twelve years in prison. Pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and 4-3(j)(1) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that this appeal is
without merit. Appellant’s counsel’s motion was accompanied by a brief that purports to discuss
all matters that might arguably support an appeal, including each adverse ruling, and a statement
as to why each point raised would not be a meritorious ground for reversal. Mr. Carroll was
furnished with a copy of his counsel’s brief and notified of his right to file a statement of pro se
points within thirty days, and Mr. Carroll has filed such a statement. Because our review has
disclosed that portions of the record have been omitted, we do not reach the merits of the
motion to be relieved at this time, but instead direct appellant’s counsel to supplement the
record.
Mr. Carroll’s notice of appeal designated the entire record of the proceedings. However,
in a subsequent amendment to the designation of record, appellant’s counsel requested that the
jury voir dire and opening statements of counsel be omitted from the record. The partial record
before us does not contain jury voir dire or opening statements per appellant’s designation. We
are not able to determine whether there has been compliance with Anders unless we are provided
with a complete record on appeal. See Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915
(2001).
We note that the motion to withdraw is also deficient because, while appellant’s counsel
has discussed most of the adverse rulings contained in the partial record now before us, one has
been omitted. In particular, on page 158 of the transcript appellant asked the trial court to
suspend part of his sentence, and the trial court denied the request. Rule 4-3(j)(1) provides that
the brief shall contain an argument section listing all adverse rulings and an explanation as to why
each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.
Consequently, we direct appellant’s counsel to supplement the record on appeal to
include the portions of the record originally omitted, and to file a substituted brief that contains
an abstract and discussion of all of the objections decided adversely to appellant contained in the
record, including any adverse rulings that may be contained in those parts of the record that are
not yet before us.
Supplementation of record and rebriefing ordered.
-2-
GRIFFEN and VAUGHT, 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.
