Parmley v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 461
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
CACR11-24
No.
Opinion Delivered
FRANK PARMLEY
APPELLANT
June 29, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[No. CR 2003-884-1]
HONORABLE ROBIN FROMAN
GREEN, JUDGE
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION
TO WITHDRAW DENIED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge
Appellant Frank Parmley was convicted of possession of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine), possession of drug paraphernalia, and delivery of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine) on May 11, 2004. He was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment in
the Arkansas Department of Correction, an additional twelve years suspended, and it credited
358 days for time served on the delivery charge. He was sentenced to ten years for each
possession conviction and fined $2100. On January 22, 2010, a petition for revocation of
suspended sentence was filed alleging that Parmley committed the offenses of manufacturing
a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug
paraphernalia. His 2004 suspended sentence was revoked on October 11, 2010. According
to the judgment and commitment order filed on October 25, 2010, Parmley was sentenced
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 461
to 336 months’ incarceration for possession of a controlled substance (a Class C felony); 336
months’ incarceration for possession of drug paraphernalia (a Class C felony); and 336 months’
incarceration for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (a Class Y felony).
He also received a special condition to his sentence requiring that he “shall complete long
term drug treatment while in custody.”
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Arkansas
Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw on the grounds that the appeal is without merit.1 Appellant’s counsel’s motion was
accompanied by a brief purportedly referring to everything in the record that might arguably
support an appeal, including a list of all rulings adverse to appellant made by the trial 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.
An Anders brief may be submitted in lieu of an appeal on the merits only if such an
appeal would be “wholly frivolous.” Eads v. State, 74 Ark. App. 363, 47 S.W.3d 918 (2001).
We remand this case because upon review, we have discovered that during the sentencing
phase there were nonfrivolous adverse rulings that were not abstracted. We are particularly
concerned with the seemingly illegal sentences associated with appellant’s Class C felony
convictions and the questionable reach of the trial court to place conditions on appellant once
he is incarcerated. Richie v. State, 2009 Ark. 602, ___ S.W.3d ___.
1
Appellant has not filed pro se points in this matter, although he was notified that in
accordance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k)(2), he was permitted to do so.
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 461
When an appeal is submitted to this court under the Anders format and we believe that
issues exist that are not wholly frivolous, we are required to deny appellant’s counsel’s motion
to withdraw and order rebriefing in adversary form. Tucker v. State, 47 Ark. App. 96, 885
S.W.2d 904 (1994). Because appellant’s counsel fails to demonstrate that an appeal would be
wholly frivolous, we remand for adversarial rebriefing.
Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw as counsel denied.
H ART and G LOVER, 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.
