Background
Martha Johnson’s counsel filed a no-merit appeal and moved to withdraw under Anders v. California and Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 4-3(b). The appeal had already returned to the Arkansas Court of Appeals after an earlier rebriefing order in Johnson v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 59.
In the first rebriefing order, the court noted that peremptory strikes during jury selection had occurred off the record and that counsel had not addressed that issue. Counsel’s new brief asserted that the defense did not object either to the off-the-record strikes or to the use of any strikes.
The Court’s Holding
The court remanded the case to settle and supplement the record within thirty days, ordered rebriefing, and denied counsel’s withdrawal motion without prejudice. The court held that it could not determine whether counsel had objected during the omitted portion of voir dire or whether any adverse rulings occurred there.
Although a verbatim record is not required in every case, the court explained that the record must permit full and complete appellate review. Because the peremptory-strike portion of voir dire was absent, the record should be reconstructed. The court expressed no view on whether counsel should ultimately file another no-merit brief or an adversarial brief.
Key Takeaways
- An Anders review requires a record sufficient for the appellate court to identify potential adverse rulings.
- Counsel’s assurance that no objection occurred cannot substitute for a missing portion of the jury-selection record.
- When a verbatim record is unavailable, the record may need to be reconstructed to permit meaningful appellate review.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that no-merit appellate procedure depends on a complete reviewable record, including voir dire when the missing material could contain objections or rulings. Counsel must review the supplemented material before deciding whether a no-merit brief remains appropriate.