Jose Rodriguez v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 8 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-24-737

JOSE RODRIGUEZ Opinion Delivered January 14, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT V. SMITH DISTRICT [NOS. 66FCR-24-30 AND 66FCR-24-31] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR, JUDGE

REMANDED TO SETTLE AND SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD; REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

This no-merit appeal returns to us after we ordered rebriefing and denied counsel’s motion to withdraw for failure to address all adverse rulings. Rodriguez v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 355. The briefing deficiencies regarding the adverse rulings have been corrected by counsel; however, the transcript of the voir dire of the potential jurors was not included in the record, and our court cannot address the appeal as it stands. See Golden v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 73, at 2. We order that the instant case be remanded to settle the record and that counsel supplement the record within thirty days.

The omission noted here may not be the only deficiency present in the record, and counsel is strongly encouraged to review Anders and Rule 4-3(b)(1) for the requirements of a *2 no-merit brief. “While it is this court’s duty to fully examine the record to determine if an appeal would be wholly without merit, it is not our duty to do so with the purpose of instructing counsel what to include in a no-merit brief.” Walton v. State, 94 Ark. App. 229, 232, 228 S.W.3d 524, 526 (2006). Once the record is supplemented, the clerk will establish a new briefing schedule.

Remanded to settle and supplement the record; rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.

BARRETT and THYER, JJ., agree.

Brett D. Watson, Attornet at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for appellant.

One brief only.