Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 436 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-25-32 Opinion Delivered September 23, 2026 DEMARIO RASHAD BLUEFORD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BRADLEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 06CR-23-11] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CREWS PURYEAR, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED MIKE MURPHY, Judge On May 14, 2025, appellant Demario Blueford’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(b)(1) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and moved to withdraw, asserting that this appeal was without merit. On January 14, 2026, we ordered rebriefing due to unaddressed adverse rulings. Blueford v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 25. Blueford’s counsel has since filed a substituted brief asserting an argument for reversal. On appeal, Blueford argues that his trial counsel’s assistance was ineffective. This argument is not preserved, and we therefore affirm. As a threshold matter, we note that the substituted brief is styled in part as a no-merit brief but also asserts a claim of error. An Anders appeal contemplates a motion to withdraw and a brief explaining why any adverse rulings present no nonfrivolous issue. Here, counsel did not renew the motion to withdraw, and although counsel explains why several adverse rulings would not support reversal, counsel also advances a point for reversal. Accordingly, we treat the substituted brief as a merit brief and address the appeal on that basis. For his second point, Blueford asserts that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated when trial counsel introduced Blueford’s deceased grandfather’s incriminating statements. Appellate counsel states that the error is preserved in the record and, therefore, that Blueford “need not wait to file a motion under Rule 37 to assert ineffective assistance of counsel.” Counsel is mistaken about what it means for an issue to be preserved. Absent extraordinary circumstances, to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue must first be presented to and ruled on by the circuit court. Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980). While Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 provides the primary vehicle for postconviction relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel, such relief may be awarded a defendant on direct appeal in limited circumstances. In order for a defendant to argue ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, he must first have presented the claim to the lower court either during the trial or in a motion for new trial. Bean v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 107, at 5, 432 S.W.3d 87, 91. The reason for this rule is that an evidentiary hearing and finding as to the competency of appellant’s counsel by the circuit court better equips the appellate court on review to examine in detail the sufficiency of the representation. Id. The circuit court is in a better position to assess the quality of legal representation than this court on appeal. Id. Our supreme court has clearly held that a direct appeal on a claim of ineffective 2 assistance of counsel is appropriate only when it is raised before the circuit court, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the claim have been fully developed at the trial level. Id. That was not done here, and we will therefore not consider it for the first time on direct appeal. Affirmed. GLADWIN and THYER, JJ., agree. Susan Robinson Cross, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: A. Evangeline Bacon, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 3