Snyder v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 817
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
CACR10-500
No.
Opinion Delivered DECEMBER 8, 2010
V.
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR2004-346-2, CR2005-98-2 &
CR2008-1343-1]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE WILLIAM A. STOREY,
JUDGE
EDWARD CHARLES SNYDER
APPELLANT
APPELLEES
REBRIEFING ORDERED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
Appellant Edward Charles Snyder brings this appeal from an order dated January 25,
2010, revoking his probation and various suspended sentences and sentencing him to a total
of one hundred seventy-two months’ imprisonment. He does not appeal the revocation itself,
but challenges only the sentence. The order and petitions to revoke originated from two cases:
(1) CR 2005-98-2, in which appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of second-degree
forgery and one count of theft of property, for which he received concurrent sentences of
twenty-four months’ imprisonment followed by a ninety-six-month suspended sentence for
each offense, all to run concurrently; and (2) CR 2008-1343-1, in which appellant pleaded
guilty to one count of fleeing, for which he received a sentence of 120 days in jail and fortyeight months’ probation. Because appellant’s addendum is not in compliance with Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A), we do not consider the appeal at this time and order
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 817
rebriefing.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A) (2010) requires the addendum to include
“the pleadings . . . on which the circuit court decided each issue.” Appellant failed to include
in his addendum the petition, or petitions, for revocation. Although appellant does not
challenge the revocation, but only the sentence, the petitions are essential to our
understanding of the case, as without them, we do not know whether the circuit court had
jurisdiction. Further, an order cannot be reviewed for error when the addendum fails to
include the documents on which the order was based. Bryan v. City of Cotter, 2009 Ark. 172,
303 S.W.3d 64. In accord with the bright-line rule enunciated in City of Cotter requiring
rebriefing where essential documents have been omitted from the abstract and addendum, we
allow appellant fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted brief, abstract,
and addendum to cure any and all deficiencies, at his own expense. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3)
(2010). In the event that appellant fails to file a complying brief within the requisite time
period, the judgment may be affirmed for noncompliance with the rule. See id.
Rebriefing ordered.
P ITTMAN, J., agrees.
G LOVER, J., concurs.
D AVID M. GLOVER, Judge, concurring. I concur for the same reasons stated in my
concurrence in Fowler v. State, 2010 Ark. App.811, decided this date.
-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.
