Martin v. State (Per Curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2014 Ark. 476 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-14-49 CODY LEE MARTIN Opinion Delivered November 13, 2014 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-12-160] V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE EDWIN KEATON, JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ORDERED; REBRIEFING ORDERED. PER CURIAM Appellant Cody Lee Martin is appealing the order entered by the Ouachita County Circuit Court denying his motion to withdraw his negotiated plea of nolo contendere to a charge of sexual assault in the first degree for which he received a sentence of eight years in prison. For reversal, he claims error in the circuit court’s decision. We cannot reach the merits of the appeal at this time because Martin has failed to file a sufficient record for our review. The issues in this case center on Martin’s plea of nolo contendere that took place at a hearing on May 17, 2013, according to the circuit court’s docket entry. However, the record does not contain a transcript of the plea hearing. Despite Martin’s assertions to the contrary, the record of the hearing is essential to our review, as the circuit court referenced the proceeding in its order. See Rice v. State, 2013 Ark. 167 (per curiam). Pursuant to Ark. R. Cite as 2014 Ark. 476 App. P.–Civ. 6(e), we direct Martin to correct this deficiency in the record by filing a certified, supplemental record of the plea hearing. Accordingly, Martin is directed to supplement the record with our clerk within thirty days from the date of this per curiam. At that time, a briefing schedule will be set. After service of the substituted brief, the State shall have an opportunity to file a responsive brief in the time prescribed by the Clerk, or to rely upon the brief that was previously filed in this appeal. Certified supplemental record ordered; rebriefing ordered. Hurst, Morrissey & Hurst, PLLC, by: Q. Byrum Hurst, Jr., for appellant. Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Vada Berger, 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.