{ "id": 6136152, "name": "Robert S. SWEENEY v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Sweeney v. State", "decision_date": "2000-01-05", "docket_number": "CA CR 99-206", "first_page": "7", "last_page": "9", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "69 Ark. App. 7" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "9 S.W.3d 529" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "55 Ark. App. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139930 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/55/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ark. App. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6141000 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/62/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "322 Ark. 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1447568 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/322/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 738", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6182629 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "744" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0738-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 259, "char_count": 3484, "ocr_confidence": 0.726, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.569878809368189e-07, "percentile": 0.6784905220342962 }, "sha256": "ff5bf09c9eccaec011cc733b4531571cb6c277264205075d2af208c549b702f7", "simhash": "1:a66f182c6bbecacb", "word_count": 580 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:09:43.542887+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Griffen and Meads, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Robert S. SWEENEY v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Andree Layton Roaf, Judge.\nRobert S. Sweeney was convicted in a bench trial of commercial burglary and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 120 months in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(j) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Sweeney\u2019s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that there are no meritorious issues that would support an appeal. This motion was accompanied by a brief in which all adverse rulings were abstracted. The argument section of the brief adequately explains why the adverse evidentiary rulings could not support a meritorious appeal, however, Sweeney\u2019s counsel has failed to discuss the sufficiency of the evidence. In the brief, he asserts that the issue was not preserved below due to a failure to make a directed-verdict motion. This assertion is not correct.\nOn April 9, 1999, the supreme court amended Rule 33.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure to require a specific directed-verdict motion in bench trials to preserve sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges for appellate review. Because Sweeney\u2019s trial was held on October 27, 1998, a directed-verdict motion was not required to preserve this issue. See Strickland v. State, 322 Ark. 312, 909 S.W.2d 318 (1995). Accordingly, we remand this case to Sweeney\u2019s trial counsel to brief this issue. See Adaway v. State, 62 Ark. App. 272, 972 S.W.2d 257 (1998).\nWe note that pursuant to Rule 4-3 (j) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals the clerk of this court furnished Sweeney with a copy of his counsel\u2019s brief and notified him of his right to raise any points that he believed would support a merit appeal. Although Rule 4-3 (j) requires only that the points be listed, in either typed or handwritten form, Sweeney filed a \u201cbrief\u2019 in which he not only raised two points, but also argued their merits. The latter was wholly unnecessary, because Anders v. California, supra, requires that after an appellant\u2019s counsel submits a no-merit brief, this court conducts a full examination of the proceedings to decide if the case is \u201cwholly frivolous.\u201d 386 U.S. at 744. We undertake this thorough review of the full record regardless of whether or not the appellant identifies the trial court\u2019s errors.\nBecause Sweeney\u2019s trial counsel has failed to comply with Rule 4-3 (j) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals and the Anders procedural blueprint, we deny his motion to withdraw and remand for rebriefing on the sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue. By this opinion, we do not foreclose a decision by Sweeney\u2019s counsel to address this issue in a merit brief.\nRemanded for rebriefing.\nGriffen and Meads, JJ., agree.\nThis case is distinguishable from Alexander v. State, 55 Ark. App. 148, 934 S.W.2d 927 (1996), in that sufficiency of the evidence was at least raised by the appellant and considered not meritorious by appellant\u2019s counsel. In the instant case, Sweeney\u2019s counsel proceeds from the false premise that the issue was not preserved. Logically he could not have given the issue a reasoned evaluation on the merits if he thought it was not preserved.", "type": "majority", "author": "Andree Layton Roaf, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Dover & Dixon, P.A., by: James R. Rhodes III, for appellant.", "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Robert S. SWEENEY v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 99-206\n9 S.W.3d 529\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division IV\nOpinion delivered January 5, 2000\nDover & Dixon, P.A., by: James R. Rhodes III, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0007-01", "first_page_order": 35, "last_page_order": 37 }