Willams v. State (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 261 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-15-866 HENRY WILLIAMS Opinion Delivered May 11, 2016 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH DIVISION [NO. 60CR-14-961] V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE BARRY SIMS, JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED CLIFF HOOFMAN, Judge Henry Williams appeals after he was convicted by a Pulaski County Circuit Court jury of battery in the first degree and sentenced to serve a total of 780 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction after applying the applicable enhancements. On appeal, appellant contends (1) that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed prior bad-act evidence that was prejudicial and not independently relevant and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion for a mistrial. However, we are unable to address the merits of his arguments at this time because of the deficiencies in his addendum. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) (2015) requires that an appellant’s brief include an addendum consisting of all documents essential to the appellate court’s resolution of the issues on appeal. In a case involving a jury trial, Rule 4-2(a)(8) further specifies that the jury-verdict forms must be included in the addendum. Id. Because appellant has not Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 261 included the jury-verdict forms in his addendum, we order him to correct this deficiency by filing a supplemental addendum within seven calendar days from the date of this opinion. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4); Hill v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 401. We further encourage appellate counsel to review our rules to determine if any additional documents must be included in the addendum. Supplemental addendum ordered. ABRAMSON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree. Willard Proctor, Jr., P.A., by: Willard Proctor, Jr., for appellant. Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Evelyn D. Gomez, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
