Fowler v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 811
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
CACR10-310
No.
Opinion Delivered
December 8, 2010
JAMIE FOWLER
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE YELL COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2008-33]
V.
HONORABLE JERRY DON RAMEY,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to sixty-five years’ imprisonment after
being convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing drug paraphernalia. He
argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict, mistrial,
exclusion of evidence of his prior criminal charges, and suppression of evidence seized during
a search of his residence. We are unable to address the merits of these arguments at this time
because part of an essential document is missing from appellant’s addendum.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires that the addendum contain the order
appealed from. Here, although the entire judgment of conviction appears in the transcript of
the proceedings, only a portion of the judgment is contained in the addendum submitted by
appellant. The Arkansas Supreme Court has required rebriefing when key documents are
missing from the addendum, e.g., Gentry v. Robinson, 2009 Ark. 345; Dachs v. Hendrix, 2009
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 811
Ark. 322, and has strongly implied that rebriefing is mandatory where essential documents are
lacking. Bryan v. City of Cotter, 2009 Ark. 172. Consequently, we order appellant to cure the
deficiency by filing a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum within fifteen days from the
date of this opinion. Failure to do so within the prescribed time may result in the judgment
appealed from being affirmed for noncompliance. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We encourage
appellate counsel, prior to filing the substituted brief, to review Arkansas Supreme Court
Rules 4-2 and 4-3 to ensure that the substituted brief complies with the rules and that no
additional deficiencies are present. After service of the substituted abstract, brief, and
addendum, the State shall have an opportunity to revise or supplement its brief in the time
prescribed by the clerk.
Rebriefing ordered.
G RUBER, J., agrees.
G LOVER, J., concurs.
D AVID M. G LOVER, Judge, concurring. I concur in order to emphasize our supreme
court’s mandated consequences of noncompliance with our appellate briefing rules. Today this
panel orders rebriefing in two cases—Fowler v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 811 (only a portion of
the judgment is contained in the addendum) and Snyder v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 817 (the
petitions for revocation are not included in the addendum). The missing addendum page in
Fowler was obviously caused by a copier jam deleting a page of the judgment (which, by the
way, is available to us in the record). Likewise, the missing petitions in Snyder were likely an
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 811
oversight of documents “essential to our understanding of the case” to establish jurisdiction,
but otherwise nonessential, since the appellant’s challenge is limited to the sentence, not the
revocation itself.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) (2008) is the fulcrum for both of our
rebriefing orders. Our supreme court, in City of Cotter, 2009 Ark. 172, by per curiam order,
enunciated the bright-line rule to which our panel today respectfully adheres. It really does
not matter that in that case, Justice Brown, in dissent, finding that the court had become far
too strict in its application of the abstract rule, stated, “We have crafted yet another procedural
pitfall for the appellate lawyer, which in my judgment is largely unnecessary.” Quite simply,
the rule must be followed.
Twenty years ago, United States Magistrate Judge Jerry W. Cavaneau (Recalled)1
referenced that lawyers love to talk about “pitfalls for the unwary” in an article addressing
Rule 54(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.2 When abstracting for the Arkansas
appellate courts, copier jams, basic oversights, and not adhering to the rules can be such
pitfalls. I did not make the rules, but I know you can only play the game by the rules. Our
rules are found in our Court Rules - Volumes 1 and 2. You really have to be careful out
there, and wary.
1
A United States magistrate judge who has retired may, upon the consent of the chief
judge of the district involved, be recalled to serve as a magistrate judge in any judicial district
by the judicial council of the circuit within which such district is located. 28 U.S.C. § 636(h).
2
Jerry W. Cavaneau, ARCP Rule Number 54(b): GOTCHA!, T HE A RKANSAS
L AWYER, January 1990, at 20.
-3-
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.