Frazier v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Slip Opinion
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
CACR08-1044
No.
Opinion Delivered
July 1, 2009
KEVIN FRAZIER
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2007-58-4]
V.
HONORABLE DON E. GLOVER,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED;
REBRIEFING ORDERED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Appellant pled guilty to numerous drug-related charges. His plea was accepted, and
the issue of sentencing was submitted to a jury. After the hearing, appellant was sentenced
to thirty-two years’ imprisonment. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2009), appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to
be relieved and a brief stating that there is no merit to the appeal. We must order rebriefing
because counsel, in an otherwise thorough brief, has failed to discuss one adverse ruling in
the argument portion of his no-merit brief.
An appellate court presented with a no-merit petition cannot affirm an appellant’s
conviction when counsel’s brief contains no discussion as to why a particular ruling by the
trial court is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Brady v. State, 346 Ark. 298, 57 S.W.3d
691 (2001); Dewberry v. State, 341 Ark. 170, 15 S.W.3d 671 (2000). Without an adequate
brief, we cannot make a reasoned decision on whether counsel is entitled to be relieved on
the ground that the appeal is without merit. Brady v. State, supra. Here, the adverse ruling
counsel has failed to discuss, appearing on pages ten and eleven of the abstract, was the trial
court’s decision to sustain the State’s objection to witness testimony on the ground that it was
unresponsive to questioning. Accordingly, counsel is directed to file within thirty days a
brief that complies with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1). When the brief is filed, we will consider
it together with the points that appellant himself has raised pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-3(k)(2).
Motion to withdraw denied; rebriefing ordered.
V AUGHT, C.J., and G LADWIN, J., agree.
-2-
CACR08-1044
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.
