Houston Gregory, Jr. v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JANUARY 24, 2002

HOUSTON GREGORY, JR.

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 00-161

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 97-585, HONORABLE DAVID B. BOGARD, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant was convicted of capital murder, aggravated robbery and theft of property. He was sentenced to life without parole, twenty-two years' and ten years' imprisonment, respectively. This court affirmed appellant's convictions in Gregory v. State, 341 Ark. 243, 15 S.W.3d 690 (2000). Appellant filed a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, alleging that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the fruits of an alleged illegal search. The circuit court denied the petition in an order dated August 16, 2000; however, the order was set aside and a new order entered on October 25, 2000, because the court did not mail a copy of the original order to appellant's attorney. In the new order, the court again denied appellant's petition, relying on the reasons set forth in its original order.

On appeal, appellant claims that the circuit court erred by denying his petition without a hearing. According to appellant, the court incorrectly found that he lacked standing to seek suppression of the evidence obtained from the search. We decline to consider appellant's arguments because he has failed to 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.1 The appellant bears the responsibility of producing a sufficient abstract, and the failure to do so prevents the court from reaching the merits of appellant's argument. Hill v. State, 337 Ark. 219, 223-24, 988 S.W.2d 487, 490 (1999). Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(7) requires that an appellant's brief include an addendum containing "true and legible photocopies of the order, judgment, decree, ruling, letter opinion ... from which the appeal is taken...." We will not explore the record for prejudicial error. Owens v. State, 325 Ark. 93, 94, 924 S.W.2d 459, 459 (1996).

Appellant has failed to include in the addendum a copy of the order dated August 16, 2000. Although this order was set aside, it should have been included in the addendum, because it was relied upon by the court in the new order denying appellant's petition. Without a copy of the original order, it is impossible for this court to determine whether a hearing was warranted on appellant's claims of ineffective assistance. Although appellant did include a brief abstract of the new order, it does not provide this court with the information necessary to an understanding of the questions presented for decision.

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). The record in the instant case was filed before September 1, 2001.