Bramlett v. Hobbs
Decision Date | 29 January 2015 |
Docket Number | No. CV-12-330,CV-12-330 |
Parties | STEVEN WAYNE BRAMLETT APPELLANT v. RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED.
On October 30, 1979, Appellant, Steven Wayne Bramlett, entered a negotiated plea of guilty to attempted capital murder and was sentenced to life in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The record demonstrates that Bramlett was seventeen years old when he committed this offense.
On October 26, 2011, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-101, Bramlett filed a pro se complaint for declaratory relief against the Appellee, Ray Hobbs, Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction ("the State") alleging that the parole-eligibility statute, codified at the time of the offense at Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2829 (Repl. 1977)1 was unconstitutional as applied to Bramlett. Bramlett asserts that the application of the parole-eligibility statute to hislife sentence is unconstitutional because in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of life imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders convicted of nonhomicide offenses. Bramlett appeals from the circuit court's order denying his pro se complaint.
On appeal, Bramlett contends that the circuit court erred (1) in its interpretation of Graham as well as the Arkansas homicide statutes, as to what constitutes homicide, and (2) in its decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the State and dismiss the case. In its response brief, the State contends that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment. and cites to the record in its brief, but fails to provide addendum citations.
Rule 4-2(a)(7) requires that "[r]eference in the argument portion of the parties' briefs to material found in the abstract and addendum shall be followed by a reference to the page number of the abstract or addendum at which such material may be found."
Here, upon review, the following items are missing from Bramlett's addendum:2
1. The State's Motion to Dismiss filed on December 7, 2011
2. Bramlett's Response filed on December 20, 2011
3. The State's Reply filed on January 6, 2012
4. Bramlett's Response to Reply filed on January 17, 2012
5. The State's Reply filed on January 20, 2012
Bramlett's addendum is deficient in that he has failed to provide these pleadings. Rule 4-7(c)(3)(C) sets forth the procedure to be followed when an appellant has failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bramlett v. Hobbs
...replied. On January 29, 2015, we issued a per curiam opinion and ordered Bramlett to supplement his addendum. Bramlett v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 32, 2015 WL 393862 (per curiam). We were unable to reach the merits of Bramlett's appeal because pleadings relied upon by the circuit court and the part......