From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
May 15, 1989
767 S.W.2d 313 (Ark. 1989)

Opinion

No. CR 88-187

Opinion delivered April 17, 1989 [Rehearing denied May 15, 1989.]

APPEAL ERROR — JUDGMENT IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF ABSTRACT — FAILURE TO ABSTRACT — CASE AFFIRMED. — The judgment or decree appealed from is an essential component of the abstract; where appellant did not abstract the court's order denying his post-conviction relief petition, the appellate court affirmed.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Berlin C. Jones, Judge; affirmed.

Morris Hodge, by: Henry C. Morris, for appellant.

Steve Clark, Att'y Gen., by: Jeannette Denhammcclendon, Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee.


Appellant Joe Samuel Brown pleaded guilty to first degree battery and was sentenced to a five-year term. He filed a Rule 37 petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied by Judge Berlin C. Jones without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Brown contends the Rule 37 court erred in failing to (1) conduct an evidentiary hearing; (2) obtain a transcript of prior proceedings; and (3) grant his petition.

Ordinarily, the judgment or decree appealed from is an essential component of the abstract. Davis v. Winfield, 297 Ark. 57, 759 S.W.2d 219 (1988). Because Brown did not abstract the court's order denying the petition, we must affirm. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(d).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Brown v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
May 15, 1989
767 S.W.2d 313 (Ark. 1989)
Case details for

Brown v. State

Case Details

Full title:Joe Samuel BROWN v. STATE of Arkansas

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: May 15, 1989

Citations

767 S.W.2d 313 (Ark. 1989)
767 S.W.2d 313

Citing Cases

Stanton v. State

This court has held that the judgment or decree appealed from is ordinarily an essential component of the…