Larry Davis v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 504
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-24-168

LARRY DAVIS Opinion Delivered October 29, 2025
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
SMITH DISTRICT
V. [NOS. 66CR-19-867, 66CR-19-982, 66CR-
20-88, 66CR-20-131, AND 66CR-20-151]

HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR,
STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE
APPELLEE
REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION
TO WITHDRAW DENIED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

This no-merit appeal returns to us after we ordered rebriefing in Davis v. State, 2025

Ark. App. 71. In this second attempt, Davis’s counsel again seeks to withdraw, asserting that

an appeal in the case would be wholly without merit. Counsel has filed another motion and

brief, purportedly pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(b) of

the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Because a deficiency

remains, we again deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and order rebriefing.

In the order for rebriefing in our previous opinion, we pointed out that the circuit

court’s bench ruling on Davis’s sentence for the revocation of his robbery conviction differed

from the sentencing order. Davis, 2025 Ark. App. 71, at 2 n.1. Specifically, from the bench,
the court sentenced Davis to eight years’ imprisonment and two years’ suspended sentence,

but the sentencing order reflects a sentence of only eight years’ imprisonment with no

suspended sentence. In our previous opinion, we also pointed out that in his no-merit brief,

counsel discussed the sentence from the court’s bench ruling but not the sentence in Davis’s

sentencing order. Id. We stated that although a reduction in sentence does not appear

adverse to Davis, counsel should discuss the discrepancy on rebriefing. See id. (citing Porter v.

State, 2020 Ark. App. 343). However, counsel has again discussed the sentence from the

bench ruling but not the sentencing order. Accordingly, we must order rebriefing.

The deficiency we have noted may not be the only one, and counsel is encouraged to

review Anders and Rule 4-3(b) for the requirements of a no-merit brief. Toney v. State, 2025

Ark. App. 3. Davis’s counsel has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted

brief. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-4(g)(2)(C). After counsel has filed the substituted brief, our clerk

will forward counsel’s motion and brief to Davis, and he will have thirty days to raise any

pro se points pursuant to Rule 4-3(b)(2). In the event pro se points are submitted, the State

will also be given an opportunity to file a response brief.

Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.

VIRDEN and TUCKER, JJ., agree.

Matt Kezhaya and Sonia Kezhaya, for appellant.

One brief only.

2