Jackson v. State
| Decision Date | 28 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 872 S.W.2d 400,316 Ark. 509 |
| Parties | Wilbert JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 93-1172. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Wilbert Jackson, pro se.
Winston J. Bryant, Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
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, 1990 WL 177166 (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. Lockhart, 304 Ark. 457, 802 S.W.2d 930 (1991).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...attacking a judgment of conviction where neither the petition nor trial court order was abstracted. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 316 Ark. 509, 872 S.W.2d 400 (1994) (per curiam); Wilson v. State, 306 Ark. 179, 810 S.W.2d 337 Nevertheless, we have not gone so far as to affirm under Rule 4-2 ......
-
Moncrief v. State, CR
...review. Watson v. State, supra. Without the trial judge's ruling or order, we have no basis for a decision. See Jackson v. State, 316 Ark. 509, 872 S.W.2d 400 (1994) (per curiam). Hence, we must also affirm the judgment and order below on this point because Moncrief's abstract is flagrantly......
-
Rabb v. State
...failure of appellant to abstract a critical document precludes this court from considering issues concerning it. See Jackson v. State, 316 Ark. 509, 872 S.W.2d, 400 (1994); Turner v. State, 59 Ark. App. 249, 956 S.W.2d 870 (1997). The record on appeal is confined to what is abstracted. See ......
-
Manning v. State
...case to abstract such parts of the record which are material to the points to be argued in the appellant's brief. Jackson v. State, 316 Ark. 509, 872 S.W.2d 400 (1994). We have further held that the failure to abstract a critical document precludes this court from considering issues concern......