Dereck Golden v. State of Arkansas

── Dereck Golden v. State of Arkansas ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 08, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 226 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-25-269 Opinion Delivered April 8, 2026 DERECK GOLDEN APPEAL FROM THE DREW APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 22CR-24-114] V. HONORABLE CREWS PURYEAR, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge Appellant Dereck Golden appeals after he was convicted by a Drew County Circuit Court jury of possession of a controlled substance—Schedule I or II methamphetamine, cocaine, or heroin less than two grams. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to serve 180 months’ incarceration. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his motion for continuance and failed to consider his best interest in doing so. We affirm.1 1 We note that appellant’s statement of the case and facts does not meet the requirements set out in Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6), which provides that the appellant’s brief “shall contain a concise statement of the case and the facts without argument” and “shall identify and discuss all material factual and procedural information contained in the record on appeal.” Here, the statement of the case consists of eight short sentences basically stating that appellant was charged, tried, and convicted. Clearly, this is woefully deficient and ordinarily merits rebriefing. However, Rule 4-2(b) allows an appellee’s brief to supplement the statement of the case if the appellee believes it to be insufficient, which the State did in this case. Therefore, we are not ordering rebriefing this time because  I. Relevant Facts Appellant was charged by felony information with possession of a controlled substance—Schedule I or II methamphetamine, cocaine, or heroin less than two grams, a Class D felony, in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-419 (Repl. 2024). The State further stated that appellant’s sentence should be enhanced because he is a habitual offender pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-501 (Repl. 2024). Appellant was found indigent, and the public defender’s office was appointed to represent him. A jury trial was held on March 5, 2025. Two days before trial, on March 3, 2025, a private attorney, Priscilla Copelin-Neeley (Ms. Neeley), filed a “Limited Entry of Appearance.” Ms. Neeley stated that she was entering her appearance during the pretrial phase only until it was clear that a trial was required. On the same day, the circuit court filed an order denying Ms. Neeley’s limited entry of appearance, stating that the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure do not permit such an appearance and that, even if permitted, such an appearance would be inapplicable since appellant’s jury trial was in two days. The circuit court further stated that the public defender’s office was to continue its representation of appellant. The next day, on March 4, 2025, several motions were filed. Ms. Neeley filed a motion for continuance. She explained that she had been retained, was filing her entry of it is not in the interest of judicial economy to do so. See Walton v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 409, 677 S.W.3d 216. That said, we strongly caution the parties to closely read the rules applicable to appeals and follow them to avoid a rebriefing order. 2 appearance, and requested a continuance because she had not had time to prepare for trial. Less than an hour late