Walton v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2012 Ark. 320 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 11-884 Opinion Delivered August 30, 2012 WALTER LEE WALTON APPELLANT V. APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CR-10-951, HON. JAMES O. COX, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS S U P P L EM EN T AL ORDERED. APPELLEE AD DEN D U M PER CURIAM A jury in Sebastian County found appellant Walter Lee Walton guilty of first-degree murder for which he received a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, appellant contends that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. We order appellant to file a supplemental addendum within seven calender days to cure deficiencies in his addendum. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires an appellant s brief to include an addendum consisting of all documents essential to the appellate court s resolution of the issues on appeal. In addition, pursuant to Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i), in a case where there was a jury trial, the jury verdict forms must be included in the addendum. Appellant s addendum does not contain the jury verdict form. In addition, the addendum does not include a motion for a continuance and a motion styled Pro Se Objections to State s Supplemental Discover Response. Neither does the addendum contain the orders entered by the circuit court disposing of these motions. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(i) requires an appellant in life- Cite as 2012 Ark. 320 imprisonment cases to include in the addendum all adverse rulings, together with such parts of the record as are needed for an understanding of each adverse ruling. Because appellant has not included the jury verdict form and the referenced motions and orders in his addendum, we order him to correct these deficiencies by filing a supplemental addendum within seven calendar days from the date of this opinion. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4); see also In re 4-2(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 2011 Ark. 141. We encourage appellate counsel, prior to filing the supplemental addendum, to review our rules as well as the addendum to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present. It is so ordered. Benca & Benca, by: Patrick J. Benca, for appellant. Dustin McDaniel, Att y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass t Att y Gen., for appellee. 2
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.
