Martha Johnson v. State of Arkansas

2026-08-26

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court remanded the case to the trial court to settle and supplement the record with the missing jury-selection transcript within thirty days, denied counsel's motion to withdraw without prejudice, and ordered rebriefing after the record is completed.

Martha Johnson appealed her criminal conviction through counsel who sought to withdraw by filing a no-merit brief under Anders v. California. The court previously ordered rebriefing because counsel had failed to address a critical issue: that all peremptory strikes during jury selection occurred off the record. On rebriefing, counsel argued that the defense never objected to the off-the-record strikes, but the court found this argument insufficient without a complete transcript.

The appellate court determined it could not properly review the case because the record lacked the jury-selection transcript, making it impossible to verify whether counsel actually objected to the strikes or whether the trial court made any adverse rulings during that phase. Without a complete record, the court could not assess whether counsel's no-merit brief satisfied the requirements of Anders and the applicable rules.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Completeness of trial record in appellate review
Peremptory strikes occurring off the record
Requirements for no-merit appellate briefs under Anders v. California
Whether counsel objected to jury-selection procedures

Procedural posture

This is a no-merit appeal in which counsel sought to withdraw; the appellate court previously ordered rebriefing, and on return, the court found the record still deficient and remanded for supplementation.

Authorities cited

Opinion · public domain

majority 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 juryselection 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

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.