Bell v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 667
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
No.
DIVISION I
CACR09-1302
Opinion Delivered
OCTOBER 6, 2010
V.
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
SMITH DISTRICT
[CR-2006-657]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE STEPHEN MERRILL
TABOR, JUDGE
RAYMOND YSEL BELL
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
In December 2005, appellant Raymond Ysel Bell pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery
and was given an adult five-year suspended sentence by the Sebastian County Circuit Court
under the Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction Act. The State filed a petition to revoke on March
31, 2009, alleging that appellant had violated the terms of his suspended sentence by
committing the felony offenses of rape and residential burglary on January 17, 2009. After
a hearing, the trial court granted the petition to revoke and sentenced appellant to twenty
years’ imprisonment.
Pursuant to Anders v. Califormia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules
of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion
to withdraw on the ground that this appeal is wholly without merit. Rule 4-3(k)(1) requires
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 667
this motion to be accompanied by a brief that contains an argument section listing all rulings
adverse to the appellant made by the trial court and explaining why each adverse ruling is not
a meritorious ground for reversal. Appellant has filed pro se points in accordance with Rule
4-3(k)(2). Because counsel has not fulfilled his obligations under the rule, we order
rebriefing.
Counsel for appellant briefed one adverse ruling by the court but did not address the
sufficiency of the evidence because appellant did not move for a directed verdict. Citing
Rule 33.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, counsel stated that the issue of the
sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appeal. While we agree that appellant did
not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, counsel must nevertheless address it in an
appeal from a revocation. The requirements of Rule 33.1 do not apply to revocation
hearings. Barbee v. State, 346 Ark. 185, 56 S.W.3d 370 (2001). The decision to revoke is an
adverse ruling that must be addressed by counsel in an Anders brief. Seay v. State, 2010 Ark.
App. 36.
Therefore, we order counsel to file a substituted brief that complies with the rule
within thirty days from the date of this opinion. When the brief is filed, we will consider it
together with the pro se points that appellant raised pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(2).
Rebriefing ordered.
HENRY and BAKER , 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.
