Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 369 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-24-681 MARTHA JOHNSON Opinion Delivered August 26, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROMTHE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 26CR-23-38] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE RICHARD OHM, APPELLEE JUDGE REMANDED TO SETTLE AND SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD; REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge This no-merit appeal returns to us after we ordered rebriefing in Johnson v State, 2026 Ark. App. 59. In this second attempt, Johnson’s counsel again seeks to withdraw, asserting that an appeal would be wholly without merit. Counsel has filed another motion and brief, purportedly pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(b) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Because a deficiency remains, we remand to settle and supplement the record within thirty days. In our previous rebriefing order, we noted that the peremptory strikes all occurred off the record. Specifically, we found that counsel had entirely failed to address this issue. Upon rebriefing, counsel does address this issue, arguing that the defense did not object to peremptory strikes occurring off the record, nor did the defense object to the use of any strikes. To determine whether there has been compliance with Anders, we must be provided with the entire record of the circuit court proceedings, including a transcript of the jury- selection process. Duckworth v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 347, at 1–2; Golden v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 73; Yancy v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 12; Mace v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 472. In this case, despite counsel’s assurances that there were no objections, we simply do not know what occurred during the peremptory-strike portion of voir dire. We are unable to determine whether there were any objections by counsel regarding any peremptory strikes, nor are we able to determine whether there were any adverse rulings during this portion of voir dire. Finally, we cannot definitively say that counsel did not object to the off-the-record strikes because we are missing that entire section of the transcript. This court is cognizant of the fact that while a verbatim record is “certainly ideal,” it is not required in every instance. Thrower v. State, 2018 Ark. 256, at 6, 554 S.W.3d 825, 829. Instead, this court evaluates whether the supplemented record enables a full and complete appellate review. Id.; Lewis v. State, 354 Ark. 359, 362, 123 S.W.3d 891, 893 (2003). Accordingly, in the absence of a verbatim record of the peremptory strikes, the record should be reconstructed. We express no opinion on whether counsel should file another no-merit brief or an adversarial one, but if they choose to file a no-merit brief, they should first determine whether there are any adverse rulings in the transcribed material following supplementation of the 2 record. The omission we have 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 no-merit brief. Once the record is supplemented, the clerk will establish a new briefing schedule. Counsel may file a substituted brief, if necessary; Johnson may file pro se points for reversal, and the State will be given an opportunity to file another responsive brief in light of the supplemental record and in the event Johnson raises pro se points. Remanded to settle and supplement the record; rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied without prejudice. THYER and HIXSON, JJ., agree. Matt Kezhaya and Sonia Kezhaya, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 3