Vick v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Slip Opinion
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
No.
DIVISION II
CACR08-1271
Opinion Delivered J ULY 1, 2009
STANLEY RAY VICK
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-2008-4]
V.
HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
MOTION DENIED; REBRIEFING
ORDERED
APPELLEE
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge
This is a no-merit appeal from the revocation of appellant’s suspended sentence.
On January 16, 2008,1 appellant pled guilty to nonpayment of child support and was
sentenced to seventy-two months’ suspended imposition of sentence. On March 5, 2008,
a revocation petition was filed alleging that appellant violated the conditions of his probation
by failing to pay child support since entering his plea of guilty to nonsupport on January 16,
2008. The trial court concluded after a hearing that appellant had violated the conditions
of his suspended imposition of sentence. By amended judgment and commitment order filed
July 30, 2008, appellant was sentenced to six-years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas
Department of Correction. This appeal followed.
1
The resulting Judgment and Disposition Order was filed on January 28, 2008.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k)(2009) of the
Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion
to withdraw on the ground that an appeal in this matter would be wholly without merit.
Appellant was provided a copy of his counsel’s brief and was notified of his right to file a
list of points on appeal within thirty days. Appellant has not raised any pro se points for
reversal. Accordingly, the State declined to file a responsive brief. We hereby deny
appellant’s motion and remand for rebriefing.
An attorney’s request to withdraw from appellate representation based upon a
meritless appeal must be accompanied by a brief that contains a list of all rulings adverse to
his client that were made on any objection, motion, or request made by either party. Eads
v.State, 74 Ark. App. 363, 47 S.W.3d 918 (2001). The argument section of the brief must
contain an explanation of why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.
Id. This court is bound to perform a full examination of the proceedings as a whole to
decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47
S.W.3d 915 (2001). If counsel fails to address all possible grounds for reversal, this court
can deny the motion to withdraw and order rebriefing. Sweeney v. State, 69 Ark. App. 7,
9 S.W.3d 529 (2000). The test is not whether counsel thinks the circuit court committed no
reversible error, but whether the points to be raised on appeal would be wholly frivolous.
See Anders, supra; Eads, supra.
Pursuant to Anders, we are required to make a
determination of whether the case is wholly frivolous after a full examination of all the
-2-
CACR08-1271
proceedings. See Anders, supra; Eads, supra.
Appellant’s brief does not comply with the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and
Court of Appeals, Rule 4-2(a)(5)(2008), in that the addendum does not include a copy of the
conditions of his suspended sentence, which he was convicted of having violated in the trial
court, or such important items as the original judgment and commitment order and the
petition for revocation. Under Rule 4-2(b)(3), “If the Court finds the abstract or Addendum
to be deficient such that the Court cannot reach the merits of the case . . . the Court will
notify the appellant that he or she will be afforded an opportunity to cure any deficiencies.”
Because we consider the deficiency herein to be such that this court cannot reach the merits
of the case pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(3), we deny appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw
and remand for rebriefing so that counsel may file a compliant brief.
Motion denied; rebriefing ordered.
VAUGHT, C.J., and PITTMAN, J., agree.
-3-
CACR08-1271
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.