Elkins v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Slip Opinion
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No.
CACR08-1252
AMY LADONNA ELKINS,
Opinion Delivered
1 JULY 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-06-233-1]
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE
THE HONORABLE GARY COTTRELL,
JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
D.P. MARSHALL JR., Judge
The circuit court revoked Amy Elkins’s suspended sentence because she failed
to pay court-ordered fees, costs, and restitution—conditions of her suspension.
Elkins’s counsel on appeal has moved to withdraw and filed a no-merit brief pursuant
to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k)(1) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). While the brief correctly points out that the circuit court made no adverse
rulings apart from the ultimate revocation decision, it simply concludes—without
explaining why—that no meritorious ground for reversal exists as to that revocation.
Elkins did not file pro se points.
We must order rebriefing. The governing rule requires the withdrawing
counsel to file a brief containing “an argument section that consists of a list of all
rulings adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court on all objections, motions
and requests made by either party with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling
is not a meritorious ground for reversal.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) (emphasis
added). The Anders procedure—which permits a criminal appellant’s counsel to
explain why his client should lose and withdraw if an appeal would be wholly
frivolous—is a legal oddity. Because of this, and in order to protect the appellant and
the judicial process, counsel must turn square corners in these cases. Brady v. State,
346 Ark. 298, 302, 57 S.W.3d 691, 694 (2001).
The short argument of appellant’s counsel is more of a conclusion than an
explanation. The statement of the case does not fill the gap. Under Anders and our
Rule, our court needs a discussion of key facts and governing law. Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744; Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1). Counsel should file a new brief within thirty days
that explains why no meritorious ground exists on this record for challenging the
circuit court’s decision to revoke Elkins’s suspended sentence.
Rebriefing ordered.
HART 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.