Frank Watts, II v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

KAREN R. BAKER, JUDGE

DIVISION II

FRANK WATTS, II

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CA00-576

MARCH 21, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CIV1997-7485]

HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER CHARLES PIAZZA, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Pro se appellant Frank Watts, II appeals from an order of forfeiture and distribution entered pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-505 (Repl. 1997 & Supp. 1999) forfeiting $3,469. Appellant raises four points on appeal: (1) that the forfeited money was obtained from the unlawful and warrantless arrest of Watts in a third person's motel room; (2) that the forfeited money was obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure; (3) that the forfeiture violated double jeopardy; and (4) that the forfeiture violated the statute of limitations.

We are unable to reach the merits of appellant's appeal because the abstract is flagrantly deficient under our rules. Rule 4-2(b)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals provides this court can confirm trial court rulings based on

noncompliance with the abstract requirements. See Hooker v. Farm Plan Corp., 331 Ark. 418, 962 S.W.2d 353 (1998); Jewel v. Arkansas State Bd. Of Dental Examiners, 324 Ark. 463, 921 S.W.2d 950 (1996). We do not relax rules governing contents of appellate briefs for pro se appellants. Hooker, 331 Ark. at 420, 921 S.W.2d at 355. The pro se appellant should be aware before he elects to proceed pro se that pro se appellants receive no special consideration of their argument and are held to the same standard as a licensed attorney. Wade v. State, 288 Ark. 94, 702 S.W.2d 28 (1986).

In his reply brief, appellant attempts to excuse the abstract's deficiency by saying that the court of appeals denied his motion for transcripts which made the transcripts unavailable to him. The transcripts in this case were on file with the Supreme Court Clerk on July 26, 2000. Appellant's brief was filed August 23, 2000. The transcripts were available to appellant as a public record. A number of means to obtain the transcript were available to appellant, such as requesting and obtaining a copy of the transcript at his expense. If appellant believed his motion for transcripts was denied in error, he could have requested reconsideration of that denial citing appropriate facts and law for reconsideration. He did not.

This is not Mr. Watt's first appeal nor the first time we have been prevented from addressing a point on one of his appeals because of an abstracting deficiency. See Watts v. State, 68 Ark. App. 47, 8 S.W.3d 563 (2000). We are aware that a pro se appellant will likely not be familiar with the rules governing the appellate process, yet the rules are one means of ensuring that each appellant and appellee is treated in a consistent and appropriatemanner. "There has to be an orderly procedure and consistent rules governing all legal petitions for relief, whether it be by a member of the bar, litigants representing themselves, or an inmate of a penal institution." Wade, 288 Ark. at 95, 702 S.W.2d at 29. Appellant was advised, when notified that his motion for transcripts was denied, that he would be "responsible for knowing the rules and conforming to them . . .. If you have questions about the form or content of an appellant's brief or procedural questions, you may wish to consult an attorney for advice."

The law, our rules and procedures, afforded appellant the means to properly pursue his appeal. He failed to avail himself of those means and therefore, his default cannot be excused. See Lovell v. Norris, 198 F.3d 674 (8th Cir. 1999).

It is the appellant's burden to produce a record sufficient to demonstrate error, and the record on appeal is confined to that which is abstracted. Midgett v. State, 316 Ark. 553, 873 S.W.2d 165 (1994). Appellant's abstract remains deficient because it does not contain an abstract of the hearing and documents necessary to address his arguments. Consequently, we cannot evaluate his claims. See Pogue v. State, 316 Ark. 428, 872 S.W.2d 387 (1994).

Affirmed.

Griffen and Crabtree, JJ., agree.