{ "id": 1111338, "name": "Orange Edward BRADY v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Brady v. State", "decision_date": "2001-10-18", "docket_number": "CR 00-929", "first_page": "298", "last_page": "302", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "346 Ark. 298" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "57 S.W.3d 691" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "327 Ark. 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 922753 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "286-87" }, { "page": "815" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/327/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 Ark. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1257708 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "172" }, { "page": "672" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/341/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "332 Ark. 661", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 377561 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "664" }, { "page": "889" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/332/0661-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 738", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6182629 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0738-01" ] }, { "cite": "344 Ark. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 210172 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "404" }, { "page": "798" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/344/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 Ark. 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 226534 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "55" }, { "page": "474" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/343/0049-01" ] }, { "cite": "327 Ark. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 922881 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "207" }, { "page": "659-60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/327/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "333 Ark. 154", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 703788 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "158", "parenthetical": "quoting K.W. v. State, 327 Ark. 205, 207, 937 S.W.2d 658, 659-60 (1997)" }, { "page": "60-61", "parenthetical": "quoting K.W. v. State, 327 Ark. 205, 207, 937 S.W.2d 658, 659-60 (1997)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/333/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 Ark. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1669003 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/264/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 Ark. 154", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1884240 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/302/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "311 Ark. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1897018 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/311/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 Ark. 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1891437 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/297/0074-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 433, "char_count": 6879, "ocr_confidence": 0.772, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.244932923323647e-07, "percentile": 0.8685446526032985 }, "sha256": "ed00554f7e63a21cfc37f13afc0c2a23dc4cfc53ed5a484b4afcd4987b4a2c8b", "simhash": "1:5f2145ed2decbf94", "word_count": 1169 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:24:55.385284+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Orange Edward BRADY v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nOrange Edward Brady was convicted of aggravated robbery and theft of property, and he subsequently pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He received concurrent sentences of twenty years\u2019, ten years\u2019, and ten years\u2019 imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Brady v. State, CACR 99-155 (Ark. App. Oct. 6, 1999).\nAppellant, acting pro se, filed a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 37 raising claims related to his jury trial convictions only. On April 13, 2000, the circuit court denied relief on each of appellant\u2019s claims but one. The circuit court set an evidentiary hearing to consider appellant\u2019s remaining claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present alibi witnesses. Thomas B. Devine, III, was subsequently appointed to represent appellant at the hearing on the remaining claim.\nThe circuit court conducted the hearing on June 2, 2000, and then denied relief in a June 21, 2000, order. Mr. Devine\u2019s subsequent motion to the circuit court to be relieved as appellant\u2019s counsel was denied at a July 5, 2000, hearing. That same day, Mr. Devine filed a notice of appeal from the June 2 hearing and the circuit court\u2019s June 21 order. He then timely lodged the record on appeal in this court, and filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief stating that there was no merit to any argument arising from the circuit court\u2019s denial of postconviction relief. In doing so, Mr. Devine only addressed the single claim of ineffective assistance concerning the alibi witnesses, and did not abstract appellant\u2019s Rule 37 petition in its entirety. Appellant was provided a copy of counsel\u2019s brief, and filed points for reversal for the court\u2019s consideration pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3 (j) (2). Appellant\u2019s points for reversal raise, in part, some of the claims raised in his Rule 37 petition that were denied by the circuit court on April 13. The State filed a brief in response to appellant\u2019s points for reversal. Neither appellant nor the State submitted a supplemental abstract of the Rule 37 petition. Because Mr. Devine, once he filed the notice of appeal, was required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4 \u2014 3(j)(1) to abstract and discuss the denial of each of the claims raised in appellant\u2019s petition, we order rebriefing in this case for compliance with the rule.\nThe circuit court\u2019s April 13 order denying all but one of appellant\u2019s claims was an intermediate order, not a final order from which appeal could be taken. This court has explained:\nThe requirement that an order be final to be appealable is a jurisdictional requirement. Wilburn v. Keenan Cos., Inc., 297 Ark. 74, 759 S.W.2d 554 (1988). The purpose of the finality requirement is to avoid piecemeal litigation. Lamb v. JFM, Inc., 311 Ark. 89, 842 S.W.2d 10 (1992). An order is final and appealable if it dismisses the parties from the court, discharges them from the action, or concludes their rights to the subject matter in controversy. Department of Human Services v. Lopez, 302 Ark. 154, 787 S.W.2d 686 (1990). The order must put the judge\u2019s directive into execution, ending the litigation, or a separable branch of it. Festinger v. Kantor, 264 Ark. 275, 571 S.W.2d 82 (1978).\nPayne v. State, 333 Ark. 154, 158, 968 S.W.2d 59, 60-61 (1998)(quoting K.W. v. State, 327 Ark. 205, 207, 937 S.W.2d 658, 659-60 (1997)). An order is final and appealable if it dismisses the parties from the court, discharges them from the action, or concludes their rights to the subject matter in controversy. Although the circuit court denied all but one of appellant\u2019s claims in its April 13 order, it also retained jurisdiction, set an evidentiary hearing on the remaining claim, and appointed Mr. Devine to represent appellant. Thus, the circuit court\u2019s June 21 order denying the remaining alibi witness claim constituted the final appealable order in this case.\n\u201cAn appeal from any final order also brings up for review any intermediate order involving the merits and necessarily affecting the judgment.\u201d Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Civ. 2(b). Rule 37 proceedings are civil in nature, Public Defender Comm. v. Greene County, 343 Ark. 49, 55, 32 S.W.3d 470, 474 (2000), and this court has referred to and applied the Rules of Appellate Procedure \u2014 Civil when necessary in criminal appeals. Byndom v. State, 344 Ark. 391, 404, 39 S.W.3d 781, 798 (2001). Applying Ark. R. App. P \u2014 Civ. 2(b) to this case, Mr. Devine\u2019s notice of appeal from the evidentiary hearing and the circuit court\u2019s final order also brought up for review the circuit court\u2019s intermediate order.\nAnders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(j)(1) sets requirements for the withdrawal of counsel for a defendant in a criminal case after a notice of appeal has been filed on the basis that an appeal is without merit. Although such a \u201cno-merit\u201d brief is typically filed in a direct appeal from a judgment, we have also allowed the filing of no-merit briefs in postconviction appeals. Matthews v. State, 332 Ark. 661, 664, 966 S.W.2d 888, 889 (1998). Counsel\u2019s \u201cno-merit brief\u2019 must contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the trial court on all objections, motions, and requests with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-30)(1). The abstract must also contain each adverse ruling. Id.\nMr. Devine\u2019s no-merit brief did not meet the requirements of Rule 4-30)(1) because he failed to abstract and list each ruling adverse to appellant, and to explain why those rulings did not provide meritorious ground for reversal. Instead, he submitted a partial abstract and only addressed the alibi witness issue that was the basis for the June 2 hearing. This court cannot affirm an appellant\u2019s conviction without any discussion as to why a particular ruling by the trial court should not be meritorious grounds for reversal. Dewberry v. State, 341 Ark. 170, 172, 15 S.W.3d 671, 672 (2000). \u201cWithout an adequate brief which contains an abstract of the record, we cannot make a reasoned decision on whether counsel is entitled to be relieved on the ground that the appeal is without merit.\u201d Mitchell v. State, 327 Ark. 285, 286-87, 938 S.W.2d 814, 815 (1997). Accordingly, counsel is directed to file a brief which complies with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-30)(1). When the brief is filed, the motion and brief will be forwarded by the Clerk to the appellant so that he may raise within thirty days any points he chooses in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-30) (2).\nRebriefing ordered.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas B. Devine, III, for appellant.", "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Orange Edward BRADY v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 00-929\n57 S.W.3d 691\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 18, 2001\nThomas B. Devine, III, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0298-01", "first_page_order": 328, "last_page_order": 332 }