Daniel Lynn Honey v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 496
Reason: I attest to the accuracy
and integrity of this document
Date: 2021-07-15 14:06:39
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION II
No. CR-19-657
9.7.5

Opinion Delivered: October 28, 2020
DANIEL LYNN HONEY
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE LOGAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NORTHERN DISTRICT
V. [NO. 42PCR-15-80]

HONORABLE JERRY RAMEY,
STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

Appellant Daniel Honey was originally convicted by a Logan County jury of one

count of rape and one count of second-degree sexual assault in 2016. Our court reversed

his convictions in Honey v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 217, 547 S.W.3d 483 (Honey I), holding

that the circuit court erred in denying Honey’s mistrial motions. The State retried Honey

in February 2019, and a jury again convicted him of one count of rape and one count of

second-degree sexual assault; he was sentenced to thirty years in the Arkansas Department

of Correction. His attorney subsequently filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k) on the

basis that an appeal would be without merit.1 We denied his motion to be relieved and

1
Honey was provided with a copy of his counsel’s brief and informed of his right to
file pro se points in both Honey II and the present proceedings, but he has not done so.
ordered rebriefing because his brief did not address every adverse ruling as required by Rule

4-3(k). Honey v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 335 (Honey II).

Counsel has now submitted a brief that purports to address the deficiencies we

identified in Honey II. From our review of the record and the amended brief, we conclude

that the abstract and addendum include all objections and motions decided adversely to

Honey, and counsel adequately explains in the argument portion of his brief why there is

nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal.

The test for filing a no-merit brief is not whether there is any reversible error but

whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. See Livingston v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 15;

Wright v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 300. From our review of the record and the brief presented

to us, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and conclude that there is no merit to an appeal.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

HARRISON and SWITZER, JJ., agree.

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

One brief only.

2