Lewis v. State

Nathaniel LEWIS v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-538                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 20, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- abstracting requirements -- arguments not properly
     abstracted are not considered -- appellant's burden. -- The appellate
     court will not consider arguments that have not been properly
     abstracted; the appellant is required to provide an abstract
     that contains information from the record necessary to an
     understanding of the questions presented to the court for
     decision; scattered references to the record contained in the
     argument portion of the brief are not sufficient to meet the
     court's requirements under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) and 4-
     2(b)(2).

2.   Appeal & error -- abstracting requirements not satisfied -- brief was
     flagrantly deficient -- judgment affirmed. -- Where appellant not only
     failed to abstract material parts of the record but also
     failed to include in his brief any abstract of the record at
     all, merely quoting in his brief part of the colloquy between
     counsel and the trial court as part of his argument, the
     supreme court concluded that the abstracting requirements were
     not satisfied, held that the brief was flagrantly deficient,
     and affirmed the judgment of conviction.


     Appeal from Crittenden Circuit Court; David Burnett, Judge;
affirmed.
     Don Trimble, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  David R. Raupp, Sr. Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     Robert L. Brown, Justice.
     This appeal arises out of a judgment of conviction for first-
degree battery and residential burglary.  Appellant Nathaniel Lewis
was sentenced to 20 years on each count to run concurrently.  His
one issue on appeal concerns whether the trial court erred in
refusing to allow him to impeach his own witness, Gordon Brown,
with a videotaped statement Brown purportedly gave to West Memphis
police officers.  He files his appeal in this court based on his
contention that this is an issue of significant public interest. 
We affirm for failure to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(2).
     This court has repeatedly held that it will not consider
arguments that have not been properly abstracted.  Wallace v.
State, 326 Ark. 376, 931 S.W.2d 113 (1996); Richmond v. State, 326
Ark. 728, 934 S.W.2d 214(1996) Watson v. State, 313 Ark. 304, 854 S.W.2d 332 (1993).  We have stated that it is a fundamental rule
that the appellant is required to provide an abstract that contains
information from the record necessary to an understanding of the
questions presented to the Court for decision.  Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-
2(a)(6); Richmond v. State, supra; D. Hawkins, Inc. v. Schumacher,
322 Ark. 437, 909 S.W.2d 640 (1995); Carmical v. City of Beebe, 316
Ark. 208, 871 S.W.2d 386 (1994).  Scattered references to the
record contained in the argument portion of the brief are not
sufficient to meet this court's requirements under Rules 4-2(a)(6)
and 4-2(b)(2).  See Richmond v. State, supra; Wynn v. State, 316
Ark. 414, 871 S.W.2d 593 (1994); Watson v. State, supra.
     Here, Lewis not only failed to abstract material parts of the
record, but he failed to include in his brief any abstract of the
record at all.  In his brief, Lewis merely quoted part of the
colloquy between counsel, Brown, and the trial court as part of his
argument.  This is plainly not enough to satisfy our rule.  His
brief is flagrantly deficient, and under such circumstances, we
affirm.  Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b).
     Affirmed.