Price v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 465
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CACR11-18
Opinion Delivered JUNE
29, 2011
ANTHONY DEWAYNE PRICE
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
SMITH DISTRICT
[NO. CR-2003-1320]
V.
HONORABLE JAMES O. COX,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
REMANDED; REBRIEFING
ORDERED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW DENIED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
In a judgment and commitment order filed October 26, 2010, the circuit court
sentenced appellant, Anthony Dewayne Price, to a total of 120 months’ imprisonment after
revoking his suspended imposition of sentences in four separate cases. According to the order,
those four cases include (1) a 2003 case involving the offense of possession of marijuana with
the intent to deliver; (2) a 2005 case involving the offenses of possession of cocaine with the
intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia; (3) a 2005 case involving the offense
of delivery of cocaine; (4) a 2007 case involving the offense of second-offense possession of
marijuana.
Price’s counsel has filed, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2011), a motion to withdraw on the ground that
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 465
the appeal is wholly without merit along with a brief containing an argument section that lists
all rulings adverse to Price made by the circuit court with an explanation as to why each
adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Missing from the record and counsel’s
brief, however, are documents necessary for an Anders review. We do not have, for example,
the judgments, accompanying conditions, and other documents related to the 2003, 2005,
and 2007 cases. Nor do we have the judgment and other documents related to a revocation
proceeding that apparently occurred in 2006. These missing items are material to our review
of the order of revocation. For instance, without the conditions, we cannot decide the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that Price violated a condition, and
without the judgments, we cannot consider the legality of the sentences imposed upon
revocation. Hadley v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 536. As another example, any information
relating to Price’s releases from imprisonment would assist this court in determining when
his suspended sentences began to run.
We acknowledge that some of these items are in a record filed in an earlier
proceeding, Price v. State, CACR07-31 (Ark. App. June 20, 2007) (unpublished), which is
available in the office of the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court. The items were not,
however, placed in counsel’s brief. As for the other items, if anything material to either party
is omitted from the record by error or accident, we may direct that the omission be corrected
and that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 6(e) (2011)
(as made applicable to criminal cases by Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(a) (2011)). Accordingly,
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 465
we remand the case to the circuit court for the record to be settled and supplemented within
thirty days. After the record is supplemented, Price’s counsel will have fifteen days to file a
substituted brief so that these items may be included in the brief on appeal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-2(b)(3) (2011).
Remanded to settle and supplement the record; rebriefing ordered; motion to
withdraw denied.
VAUGHT, C.J., and GLOVER, J., 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.
