From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Mar 28, 1994
872 S.W.2d 400 (Ark. 1994)

Opinion

CR 93-1172

Opinion delivered March 28, 1994

APPEAL ERROR — ABSTRACT FLAGRANTLY DEFICIENT — JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. — Where the appellant failed to submit an adequate abstract of the brief the supreme court affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 4-2 (b) (2) which provides for affirmance of a judgment for noncompliance with the abstracting requirement; even an appellant acting pro se must abstract such parts of the record which are material to the points to be argued in the appellant's brief; the failure to abstract a critical document precluded the court from considering issues concerning it.

Appeal from Little River Circuit Court; Ted Capeheart, Judge; affirmed.

Appellant, Pro Se.

No response.


The appellant Wilbert Jackson was convicted on September 7, 1989, of two counts of theft of property and of being an habitual offender. He was sentenced to twenty-six years imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Jackson v. State, CACR 90-45 (November 14, 1990). The appellant claims he subsequently filed in the trial court a petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111 and that the trial court denied it. Appellant has lodged a record on appeal of the order denying the petition and filed a brief.

The appellant has failed to submit an adequate abstract in the brief. Neither the petition to correct sentence nor the order he alleges to have been entered are abstracted. Our Rule 4-3 (g) provides that it is the duty of the appellant in a criminal case, even though the appellant may be acting pro se, to abstract such parts of the record which are material to the points to be argued in the appellant's brief. The failure to abstract a critical document precludes this court from considering issues concerning it. Porchia v. State, 306 Ark. 443, 815 S.W.2d 926 (1991). As the abstract in this case is flagrantly deficient, we affirm pursuant to Rule 4-2 (b) (2) which provides for affirmance of a judgment for noncompliance with the abstracting requirement.

Affirmed.

BROWN, J., dissents. See Fruit v. State, 304 Ark. 457, 802 930 (1991).


Summaries of

Jackson v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Mar 28, 1994
872 S.W.2d 400 (Ark. 1994)
Case details for

Jackson v. State

Case Details

Full title:Wilbert JACKSON v. STATE of Arkansas

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Mar 28, 1994

Citations

872 S.W.2d 400 (Ark. 1994)
872 S.W.2d 400

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

We have also affirmed in cases collaterally attacking a judgment of conviction where neither the petition nor…

Watson v. State

We have no idea what the allegation was because neither Mr. Watson nor the State has abstracted an…