Moore v. State

Annotate this Case
Cedric Gerald MOORE v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-95                                           ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 16, 1996


Appeal & error -- abstract flagrantly deficient -- judgment of 
     conviction summarily affirmed. -- Where the abstract contained
     only the information, immaterial motions and orders involving
     the appointment and substitution of counsel, and an order
     reflecting an earlier mistrial, but contained no references to
     the testimony, arguments, rulings, instructions, jury's
     findings, or the judgment of conviction, the judgment of
     conviction was summarily affirmed; when an appellant's
     abstract is flagrantly deficient, the supreme court will
     summarily affirm the judgment of conviction pursuant to Ark.
     Sup. Ct. R. 4-2.  


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; John W. Langston, Judge;
affirmed.
     Mark Ferguson, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Gil Dudley, Asst. Att'y Gen.,
for appellee.

     Robert H. Dudley, Justice.
     Cedric Gerald Moore was convicted of kidnapping, attempted
rape, and theft of property.  We summarily affirm the judgment of
conviction because the abstract is flagrantly deficient.  See Ark.
Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(2). 
     The abstract contains only the information, immaterial motions
and orders involving the appointment and substitution of counsel,
and an order reflecting an earlier mistrial.  It contains no
references to the testimony, arguments, rulings, instructions,
jury's findings, or the judgment of conviction.  When an
appellant's abstract is flagrantly deficient we summarily affirm
the judgment of conviction pursuant to Rule 4-2.  Edwards v. State,
321 Ark. 610, 906 S.W.2d 310 (1995).  Enigmatically, the transcript
does not contain any of the testimony, argument, instructions, or
rulings, and the points for reversal, which involve alleged
ineffective assistance of counsel, do not assert trial court error. 
     Affirmed.   

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.