Harris v. State (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 390 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-14-789 Opinion Delivered June 17, 2015 MARCUS HARRIS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2010-10-1] V. HONORABLE BERLIN C. JONES, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge Marcus Harris appeals from the revocation of his previously ordered probation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 43(k), appellant’s attorney has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, stating that there is no merit to the appeal. The motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below and a brief in which counsel asserts that there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal. The clerk of this court mailed copies of counsel’s motion and brief to each of appellant’s last three known addresses, notifying him of his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days. Each time, the package was returned “not deliverable” or “unclaimed.” Appellant has filed no statement. Because the addendum is incomplete, we must first order that it be supplemented before we can decide the case. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires that an Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 390 appellant’s brief contain an addendum that includes true and legible photocopies of nontranscript documents in the record that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. For obvious reasons, the rule specifically requires that the addendum contain the judgment from which the appeal is taken. Here, however, appellant’s addendum does not include the judgment and sentencing order appealed from. Under these circumstances, we direct counsel for appellant to file within seven days a supplemental addendum correcting this omission. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 42(b)(4). We strongly encourage counsel, prior to filing the supplement, to review our rules as well as the abstract and addendum to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present. After the supplement is filed, the case will be resubmitted for decision. Supplemental addendum ordered. HARRISON and GLOVER , JJ., agree. Gary W. Potts, for appellant. No response. 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.
