APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO.63CR-13-39] HONORABLE ROBERT HERZFELD, JUDGE
Jones Law Firm, by: F. Parker Jones III, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Rebecca B. Kane, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant appeals from his conviction of four counts of computer exploitation of a child-first degree, a Class B felony, and twenty counts of distributing/possessing or viewing matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child-first offense, a Class C felony. Appellant's counsel has filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw as counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California,  and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k), stating that there are no meritorious grounds to support an appeal. The clerk mailed a certified copy of counsel's motion and brief to appellant, informing him of his right to file pro se points for reversal. Appellant availed himself of the opportunity to file pro se points for reversal. However, counsel's no-merit brief includes some deficiencies. Accordingly, we order rebriefing.
Under the Anders format, a motion to withdraw must be accompanied by an abstract and brief referring to everything in the record that might arguably support an appeal, including all motions, objections, and requests decided adversely to appellant, and a statement of reasons why none of those rulings would be a meritorious ground for reversal. Trial counsel gave numerous grounds for appellant's motion for directed verdict, which he properly renewed. With respect to the twenty counts charging that appellant distributed, possessed, or viewed any matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child, trial counsel argued, that:
1. There was insufficient evidence that appellant knowingly possessed such matter;
2. The State failed to prove the elements of sexually explicit conduct;
3. There was insufficient evidence that the depicted individual in each photograph was a child as defined by statute; and
4. The twenty counts should be reduced to one count because the pictures giving rise to the charges constituted a continuing offense and to prevent violation of double jeopardy.
With respect to the four counts charging appellant with computer exploitation of a child-first degree, trial counsel argued, that:
1. The State failed to prove that there was sexually explicit conduct depicted in each of the four photographs that were relied on; and
2. The four counts should be reduced to one count because the pictures giving rise to the charges constituted a continuing offense and to ...