Gary T. Cloird v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

OCTOBER 11, 2001

GARY T. CLOIRD

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

00-166

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY, LCIV-99-10-3, HONORABLE FRED D. DAVIS III, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

In 1992, appellant was convicted in Jefferson County Circuit Court of rape and theft of property. He received consecutive sentences of thirty years' imprisonment for the rape, and five years' imprisonment and a $1,000.00 fine for the theft. We affirmed appellant's convictions and sentences in Cloird v. State, 314 Ark. 296, 862 S.W.2d 211 (1993). In 1999, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Lincoln County Circuit Court. The circuit court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued.

We have repeatedly held that a writ of habeas corpus will issue only if the commitment was invalid on its face or the committing court lacked jurisdiction. Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 420, 13 S.W.3d 143, 144 (2000). Appellant claims that the Jefferson County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the cause of rape because the crime allegedly occurred in a different county than that in which he was convicted. We decline to consider appellant's argument because he has failedto produce a record on appeal sufficient to demonstrate error.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) requires an appellant to include an abstract of the record consisting of the material parts of the record that are necessary to an understanding of the questions presented for decision. It is the appellant's burden to produce a record sufficient to demonstrate error. Johnson v. State, 342 Ark. 357, 361, 28 S.W.3d 286, 288 (2000). With the exception of materials included in the addendum, the record on appeal is confined to that which is abstracted. Huddleston v. State, 339 Ark. 266, 273, 5 S.W.3d 46, 50-51 (1999). We have noted that with only one record on appeal and seven justices, it is essential that the material parts of the record be abstracted. Id. We will not explore the record for prejudicial error. Owens v. State, 325 Ark. 93, 94, 924 S.W.2d 459, 459 (1996).

Here, appellant has failed to abstract his petition for habeas relief. The failure to abstract a critical document precludes this Court from considering issues concerning it. Watson v. State, 329 Ark. 511, 512, 951 S.W.2d 304, 305 (1997). Moreover, appellant has failed to abstract the information charging him with rape committed in Jefferson County, the testimony of his trial, or his judgment and commitment order. Thus, we are unable to determine whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the cause of rape. Appellant's brief is flagrantly deficient, and under such circumstances, we affirm. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b).

Affirmed.