Cite as

Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document DIVISION I No. CR-19-823 2023.06.27 11:46:52 -05'00' 2023.001.20174 Opinion Delivered: May 5, 2021 NOAH STEPHEN MCDANIEL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 44CR-19-22]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE MARK LINDSAY, APPELLEE JUDGE REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION DENIED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Noah Stephen McDaniel appeals his conviction of three counts of first-degree

terroristic threatening and sentencing enhancements for targeting law enforcement officers

and for being a habitual offender. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 216 months’

imprisonment and fined $30,000. This is the second time this no-merit appeal has been

before this court. On October 7, 2020, we ordered rebriefing because appellate counsel

failed to address an adverse ruling. See McDaniel v. State,

. Appellate

counsel has filed a second motion to be relieved as counsel and another brief ostensibly

prepared pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), and Rule 4-3(k)(1) (2019)

of the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The clerk of this court

provided McDaniel with a copy of counsel’s brief and notified him of his right to file pro se points for reversal; he has declined to do so. The State did not file a response. We again

return the case to counsel for rebriefing because the requirements of Anders and Rule 4-3

have not been satisfied.

McDaniel was tried by a jury on May 6, 2019. The State presented evidence that

McDaniel had threatened to kill three law enforcement officers who had arrested him. At

the conclusion of the State’s case, McDaniel moved for a directed verdict on the three

counts of first-degree terroristic threatening. He argued that the State presented insufficient

evidence that he acted with the purpose to fill the victims with intense fright. He pointed

out that he had made the statements to third parties, not the victims, and that he was

intoxicated and extremely agitated at the time. Further, on one count, he argued that the

evidence was insufficient because he did not specifically name the victim.

McDaniel also moved for a directed verdict on the enhancements for targeting law

enforcement officers and argued that the State failed to show that he had threatened the

victims because they are law enforcement officers. The court denied his motion. After

concluding his case, McDaniel renewed his directed-verdict motion.

In his no-merit brief, appellate counsel fails to discuss McDaniel’s specific arguments

from his directed-verdict motion for the terroristic-threatening charges. Additionally,

counsel completely omits a discussion of the directed-verdict motion on the sentencing

enhancements for targeting law enforcement officers. 1

1 Counsel includes a discussion concerning preservation of his directed-verdict motion. We note that as long as a specific basis is articulated for the original directed-verdict motion, a general renewal is sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. Durham v. State,

,

(1995); Dale v. State,

,

(1996).

2 In our previous opinion, we cautioned counsel that our mention of a particular

adverse ruling that was not addressed in the brief did not mean that there were no other

adverse rulings that were omitted. See McDaniel,

. We also advised

counsel to thoroughly review Anders and Rule 4-3 concerning the requirements for

submitting a no-merit brief.

We again raise all the aforementioned cautions. It is counsel’s

responsibility to comply with the requirements for submitting a no-merit brief. See Weaver

v. State,

. We further remind counsel that repeated failures to comply

with the requirements for filing a no-merit brief outlined in Anders and Rule 4-3(k) will be

referred to the Committee on Professional Conduct. We express no opinion as to whether

the substituted brief should be submitted pursuant to Rule 4-3(k) or on meritorious grounds.

Counsel has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted brief.

Rebriefing ordered; motion denied.

HARRISON, C.J., and GRUBER, J., agree.

King Law Group PLLC, by: W. Whitfield Hyman, for appellant.

One brief only.

3