Jensen v. State

Full title: KURTIS A. JENSEN APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

Court: ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV

Date published: Feb 20, 2013

2013 Ark. App. 122 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013)

Opinion

No. CACR12-700

02-20-2013

KURTIS A. JENSEN APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

Tapp Law Offices, by: Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by:

RHONDA K. WOOD

APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, [NO. CR-2011-676-IV]

HONORABLE MARCIA R. HEARNSBERGER, JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

RHONDA K. WOOD , Judge

Appellant Kurtis Jensen entered a conditional guilty plea for driving while intoxicated. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3 (2012). His argument on appeal is that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the charges because speedy trial had expired. We are unable to address Jensen's argument because his brief is deficient.

First, Jensen's statement of the case cites to pages in the addendum that do not exist. The addendum is only 93 pages, but the first citation in the statement of the case is to "ADD 194." This error persists throughout the statement of the case. Our rules require that "the statement . . . include supporting page references to the abstract or addendum or both." Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) (2012). Second, Jensen's conditional plea, file-marked July 10, 2012, states that a hearing on his motion to dismiss took place on January 17, 2012. But this hearing is not abstracted in Jensen's brief. "The appellant shall create an abstract of . . . information essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal." Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5). If a hearing did indeed occur on January 17, then it should be abstracted so we can understand the arguments made to the circuit court and any rulings the court made.

We therefore order Jensen's counsel to file a substituted brief that complies with our rules within fifteen days of the date of this opinion. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). The State shall have fifteen days thereafter to revise or supplement its brief, unless it elects to rely on the brief already filed in this appeal. We strongly urge Jensen's counsel to review our briefing rules prior to submitting a substituted brief in order to ensure that the substituted brief complies with the rules.

Rebriefing ordered.

HARRISON and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.

Tapp Law Offices, by: J. Sky Tapp, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Laura Shue, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.