Antonio Demond Finney v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

NOVEMBER 15, 2001

ANTONIO DEMOND FINNEY

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CR 00-160

AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY,

NO. CR-97-4294

HONORABLE JOHN B. PLEGGE,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

The appellant, Antonio Finney, was convicted at a bench trial of two counts of aggravated robbery, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of fourteen years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence in Finney v. State, CACR 98-1420 (Ark. App. July 7, 1999). Appellant then filed a petition pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied appellant's petition without a hearing. On September 27, 2001, we granted leave to file a substituted brief to provide an adequate abstract by October 29. The deficiencies have not been cured. We affirm as appellant's abstract is flagrantly deficient. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6)(1999).1

From the abstract presented, we have no way of resolving the issues raised in appellant's brief challenging counsel's alleged ineffective performance. An abstract "should consist of an impartial condensation . . . of only such material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters in the record as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to the Court for decision." Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5). At a minimum, abstracts of basic pleadings and court orders are necessary. See King v. State, 325 Ark. 313, 925 S.W.2d 159 (1996); Edwards v. Neuse, 312 Ark. 302, 849 S.W.2d 479 (1993). The rules are not relaxed for pro se appellants. Jewell v. Arkansas State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 324 Ark. 463, 921 S.W.2d 950 (1996).

Here, appellant not only failed to abstract material parts of the record, but he failed to include in his brief any abstract of the trial below. Each of appellant's arguments on appeal require a review of the trial proceedings below. Thus, we are precluded from reviewing these issues because of appellant's inadequate abstract.

Affirmed.

1 Cases in which the record is lodged in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals on or after September 1, 2001, will no longer be affirmed because of the insufficiency of the abstract without the appellant first having the opportunity to cure the deficiencies. See In re: Modification of the Abstracting System -- Amendments to Supreme Court Rules 2-3, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, Ark. Appx. __, __ S.W.3d __ (2001) (per curiam).