FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NO. 26CR-17-601.
HONORABLE MARCIA R. HEARNSBERGER, JUDGE.
Law Group PLLC, by: Natalie S. King, for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge. GRUBER, C.J., and KLAPPENBACH,
M. BROWN, Judge
Garland County Circuit Court jury found appellant Andre
Flowers guilty of aggravated residential burglary and battery
in the first degree. He was sentenced as a habitual offender
to a total of ninety years' imprisonment and fined
$15,000. Appellant's counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw and a no-merit brief 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 of this court
provided appellant with a copy of counsel's brief and
motion and notified appellant of his right to file pro se
points for reversal. Appellant has filed pro se points for
reversal, and the State has filed a response. We affirm
appellant's convictions and grant counsel's motion to
request to be relieved as counsel on the ground that the
appeal is wholly without merit shall be accompanied by a
brief including an abstract and addendum. The brief shall
contain an argument section that consists of a list of all
rulings adverse to the defendant made by the trial court with
an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a
meritorious ground for reversal. It is imperative that
counsel follow the appropriate procedure when filing a motion
to withdraw as counsel. 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.
main unfavorable ruling against appellant is the court's
denial of his directed-verdict motions. This court treats a
motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence. The test for determining
sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is
supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial;
substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a
conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or
conjecture. Evidence is viewed in the light most
favorable to the State; only evidence that supports a verdict
is considered. 
Appellant was found guilty of aggravated residential
burglary. He was tried under the theory of accomplice
liability— when two or more person assist one another
in the commission of a crime, each is an accomplice and
criminally liable for the conduct of both. Arkansas makes no
distinction between the criminal liability of a principal and
an accomplice. Arkansas Code Annotated section
(a) A person commits aggravated residential burglary if he or
she commits residential burglary as defined in § 5-39-201 of
a residential occupiable structure ...