Jerry Lural Edmond v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
cr04-799

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR 04-799

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JERRY LURAL EDMOND

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

Opinion Delivered June 30, 2005

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HEMPSTEAD COUNTY, CR 2000-181-2, HON. DUNCAN McRAE CULPEPPER, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM

Jerry Lural Edmond was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed. Edmond v. State, 351 Ark. 495, 95 S.W.3d 789 (2003). Edmond filed a timely pro se petition pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure seeking to vacate the judgment, but the petition was denied by the trial court on the ground that it was not timely filed. Edmund appealed from the order and we reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court to consider the petition on its merits. Edmond v. State, CR 03-871 (October 23, 2003) (per curiam). The trial court denied the Rule 37.1 petition on its merits, and the record on appeal from the order was lodged here.

Appellant filed a brief that did not conform to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2. We granted a motion filed by the appellee asking that appellant Edmund be required to submit a substituted brief. Edmund v. State, CR 04-799 (October 7, 2004) (per curiam order). Appellant has now filed his substituted brief, and the State asserts that the substituted brief still does not conform to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2. We must agree. Appellant has not provided an abstract. He has included what appear to be excerpts from the transcripts of the Rule 37.1 petition hearing and the trial in his addendum, but for those portions included, he has not abstracted the testimony or condensed it.

Even if the transcript excerpts included in appellant's addendum had been adequate to serve as appellant's abstract, appellant would not have provided enough of the relevant testimony for an adequate review of his arguments. Appellant has asserted ineffective assistance of counsel. An appeal from denial of postconviction relief that is based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a complete abstract of the trial proceedings for a meaningful review. In determining a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the totality of the evidence before the factfinder must be considered. Greene v. State, 356 Ark. 59, 146 S.W.3d 871 (2004). An appellant must provide an abstract sufficient to conduct a meaningful review. Campbell v. State, 349 Ark. 111, 76 S.W.3d 271 (2002).

All litigants, including those who proceed pro se, must bear responsibility for conforming to the rules of procedure. Peterson v. State, 289 Ark. 452, 711 S.W.2d 830 (1986)(per curiam); Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984)(per curiam); Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 163, 655 S.W.2d 424 (1983)(per curiam). See also Tarry v. State, 353 Ark. 158, 114 S.W.3d 161 (2003). The pro se appellant receives no special consideration on appeal. Eliott v. State, 342 Ark. 237, 27 S.W.3d 432 (2000). See Gibson v. State, 298 Ark. 43, 764 S.W.2d 617 (1989).

Appellant was provided an opportunity to submit a conforming brief in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2. He has failed to do so and the dismissal of his petition must be affirmed for noncompliance in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).

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.