Frederick Lee Pitchford v. City of Earle

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

FREDERICK LEE PITCHFORD

APPELLANT

V.

CITY OF EARLE

APPELLEE

CA05-653

MARCH 8, 2006

APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CV-2005-304]

HON. VICTOR HILL, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Sam Bird, Judge

Frederick Lee Pitchford sought judicial review in the Crittenden County Circuit Court of "Resolution # 2004 RN 18, entered by the City of Earle Ordinance #1984-1," which purportedly provided for the removal of Pitchford's house at 1609 Carroll Cloar Street in Earle, Arkansas, after the house was condemned by the city as a public nuisance. The circuit court dismissed his appeal with prejudice on May 19, 2005. Pitchford, acting pro se, now appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his case. We affirm.

Pitchford raises three points on appeal. First, he contends that his property was well kept and was not in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-1502, governing the declaration of a common nuisance within a municipality. Second, he asserts that his equal-protection rights were violated under the Arkansas and United States Constitutions because he had aright to own city property and not be harassed. Third, he asserts that the State violated Arkansas statutes and laws in addition to his constitutional rights.

Pitchford's brief contains no abstract of any evidence that might have been presented to the trial court. In the argument portion of his brief, Pitchford states that he had informed the mayor and city council that his house was under construction, and that he had taken the city inspector inside the house to see that he was making progress in the construction. Although his argument refers to exhibits (apparently photographs) as proof that the inspector could see the progress in his construction, the addendum to his brief contains only his notice of appeal and the trial court's dismissal order, but no exhibits.

In considering whether to remand this case for rebriefing pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3), we have examined the record in the clerk's office. We do not find that the record contains a transcript of any proceedings in the trial court or any exhibits. In fact, the record consists of nothing but appellant's motion and supporting affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis, a notice of judge assignment, an order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis, appellant's notice of appeal from the Earle District Court, the circuit court's order of dismissal, and the notice of appeal to this court. Thus, we conclude that the record contains nothing to be rebriefed.

The burden is on an appellant to bring up a record sufficient to demonstrate that the trial court was in error, and we have no choice but to affirm the trial court when the appellant does not meet this burden. Dodge v. Lee, 352 Ark. 235, 100 S.W.3d 707 (2003). In the present case, Pitchford has failed to provide this court with a record that demonstrates the basis of the circuit court's dismissal. Without such a record, we would be forced to engage in speculation as to the reason or reasons for the dismissal. Because the record is insufficient to show that the circuit court erred in dismissing his appeal at the trial level, our only alternative is to affirm the dismissal.

Affirmed.

Glover and Crabtree, JJ., agree.