Collier v. State, CACR12-670
| Decision Date | 20 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. CACR12-670,CACR12-670 |
| Citation | 2013 Ark. App. 119 |
| Parties | JAMES COLLIER III APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [No. CR-2011-23-1]
Appellant James Collier III was convicted by a Jefferson County jury of aggravated assault on a family or household member and of committing the assault in the presence of a child. He was sentenced to a six-year term of imprisonment for the former conviction and a two-year term of imprisonment for the latter, to be served consecutively. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2012), Collier's counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. The motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below, and a brief in which counsel asserts that there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal. Collier has filed a pro se statement of points for reversal, and the State has filed a response to Collier's statement. Because Collier's counsel has failed to comply with our rules for no-merit cases, we order rebriefing.
On January 13, 2011, the State filed a criminal information against Collier alleging that on January 4, 2011, he committed the offense of aggravated assault on a family or householdmember pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-26-306 (Repl. 2006). On February 3, 2012,1 the State amended the information, restating the aggravated-assault allegation and adding a sentencing enhancement, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-702 (Supp. 2011), for committing the offense in the presence of a child.
At Collier's jury trial, Tanicha Collier and her three children, eighteen-year-old Akemia and fifteen-year-old twins James IV and Jamie testified that Collier (Tanicha's ex-husband and the father of the three children) argued with Akemia about dirty dishes and grabbed a hammer, stating that "he was going to take care of her." James IV tried to grab the hammer and was pushed away by Collier. Tanicha also tried to intervene and grab the hammer. While James IV and Tanicha struggled with Collier, Jamie retrieved a gun and shot Collier in the back. Tanicha and her children testified that they were frightened that Collier was going to harm Akemia with the hammer. Collier and Jamie were arrested following the incident.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Collier guilty of aggravated assault of a family or household member and guilty of committing the offense in the presence of a minor. During the sentencing phase of trial, the State offered into evidence four documents reflecting Collier's prior guilty pleas and convictions.2 Thereafter, the defense presented characterevidence from two of Collier's friends. Finally, Collier testified that he loved his family and had learned his lesson. After deliberating, the jury returned with a six-year sentence for the aggravated-assault conviction and an additional two-year sentence for committing the offense in the presence of a minor. This no-merit appeal followed.
In motions to withdraw as counsel and no-merit briefs filed pursuant to Anders and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k), it is imperative that counsel follow the appropriate procedure. Forster v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 34, at 2. In furtherance of the goal of protecting constitutional rights, it is both the duty of counsel and of this court to perform a full examination of the proceedings as a whole to decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Id.
Collier's counsel, in her no-merit brief, abstracted and discussed several rulings that were adverse to Collier, including but not limited to, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the aggravated-assault conviction, the trial court's decision to allow the State to amend its information just days before trial, and one adverse evidentiary ruling. However, our review of the record reveals two additional adverse evidentiary rulings that counsel abstracted but failed to discuss in the no-merit brief.
The first omitted adverse evidence ruling occurred during Jamie's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds v. State
...which the court sustained the State's three relevancy objections. Evidentiary rulings must be abstracted and discussed. See Collier v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 119 (ordering rebriefing where two adverse evidentiary rulings were abstracted but not discussed by counsel in appellant's brief). Add......
-
Collier v. State
...Att'y Gen., by: Jake H. Jones, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee. 1. This is the second time we have reviewed the case. In Collier v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 119, we ordered rebriefing because counsel failed to comply with our rules for no-merit cases. Specifically, in the prior appeal, we noted......