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