Holland v. State (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 492 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III CR-16-175 No. Opinion Delivered: October WESLEY GENE HOLLAND APPELLANT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS 26, 2016 APPEAL FROM THE CLEVELAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 13CR-2014-48-5] HONORABLE DAVID W. TALLEY, APPELLEE JR., JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge Wesley Gene Holland appeals his convictions of second-degree sexual assault and residential burglary. On appeal, Holland argues that the circuit court erred in denying his directed-verdict motions. We cannot address the merits of Holland’s appeal because Holland’s addendum fails to comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 (2015). Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires an appellant’s brief to include an addendum consisting of all documents essential to this court’s resolution of the issues on appeal, including exhibits such as CDs and DVDs. Holland’s addendum does not comply with this rule. At trial, the State introduced and played audio recordings of two different interviews between Holland and the police. Holland, however, failed to include copies of the audio recordings in his addendum as required by our rules. Because Holland’s addendum is inadequate, we order him to file a supplemental addendum within seven days of this Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 492 opinion. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We encourage counsel to review our rules, as well as the record and addendum, to ensure that no other deficiencies are present. Supplemental addendum ordered. GLADWIN, C.J., and WHITEAKER, J., agree. N. Mark Klappenbach, for appellant. Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kathryn Henry, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 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.
