Wormley v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 166
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CACR 08-1344
SHELTON WORMLEY
APPELLANT
Opinion Delivered February 17, 2010
V.
APPEAL FROM THE DREW
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2007-0184-1A]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE SAM POPE, JUDGE
APPELLEE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
COURTNEY HUDSON HENRY, Judge
A jury in Drew County found appellant Shelton Wormley guilty of manufacturing
marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and possession of drug
paraphernalia. As a consequence, appellant received cumulative sentences totaling forty years
in prison. For reversal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
suppress and his motion for a continuance. We order rebriefing because appellant’s abstract
is deficient with regard to the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for
a continuance.
Rule 4-2(a)(5) of the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
provides in pertinent part:
Abstract. The appellant’s abstract or abridgement of the transcript should
consist of an impartial condensation, without comment or emphasis, of only
such material parts of the testimony and colloquies between the court and
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 166
counsel and other parties as are necessary to an understanding of all questions
presented to the Court for decision.
The rule further provides that, if the appellate court determines that the abstract is deficient,
the court will afford the appellant an opportunity to cure the deficiencies by filing a
substituted brief that conforms with the requirements of the rule. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).
A motion for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and
its ruling will not be reversed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of that discretion.
Jackson v. State, 2009 Ark. 336, ___ S.W.3d ___. The burden of establishing an abuse of
discretion falls squarely on the shoulders of the appellant. Brown v. State, 374 Ark. 341, 288
S.W.3d 226 (2008). An appellant must not only demonstrate that the trial court abused its
discretion by denying a motion for a continuance, but he must also show prejudice that
amounts to a denial of justice. Smith v. State, 352 Ark. 92, 98 S.W.3d 433 (2003).
In this case, appellant moved for a continuance on the ground that his appointed
counsel was not prepared for trial. On appeal, appellant maintains that the trial court abused
its discretion by denying the motion. In its brief, the State contends that appellant has not
shown any prejudice flowing from the trial court’s ruling, asserting that appellant’s counsel
ably defended him at trial. We, however, are not able to determine whether appellant did
or did not suffer prejudice because appellant has not abstracted the record of trial. We also
note that appellant failed to abstract the entire discussion between court and counsel on the
continuance issue.
-2-
CACR 08-1344
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 166
For these reasons, we find appellant’s abstract to be flagrantly deficient. Accordingly,
we order appellant’s counsel to file a substituted brief curing the deficiencies in the abstract
within fifteen days from the date of this opinion. After service of the substituted brief, the
State shall have the opportunity to file a responsive brief, or it may choose to rely on the brief
previously filed in this appeal.
Rebriefing ordered.
PITTMAN and BAKER, JJ., agree.
-3-
CACR 08-1344
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.