Charles Morgan v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
This text of 2020 Ark. App. 409 (Charles Morgan v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Reason: I attest to the Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 409 accuracy and integrity of this document ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Date: 2021-07-09 09:06:39 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION II 9.7.5 No. CV-19-704
CHARLES MORGAN Opinion Delivered: September 16, 2020 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE POLK V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 57JV-17-30] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR CHILDREN HONORABLE JERRY RYAN, APPELLEES JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge
Appellant, Charles Morgan, appeals a Polk County Circuit Court order terminating
his parental rights to two children, C.M. and A.M. Morgan’s counsel initially filed a no-
merit brief and motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Linker-Flores v. Arkansas
Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Arkansas Supreme
Court Rule 6-9(i) (2019). Due to various deficiencies in the record and brief, we denied
counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered him to supplement the record and cure the
briefing deficiencies. Morgan v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 128. As ordered,
Morgan’s counsel filed the supplemental record along with a substituted no-merit brief and
motion to be relieved as counsel. Counsel, however, has failed to cure all the deficiencies
identified in our previous opinion. In our previous opinion in this case, we specifically noted that the addendum to the
no-merit brief failed to include the notice of appeal. The substituted brief filed by counsel
again fails to include the notice of appeal.1 Rule 6-9 provides in relevant part as follows:
Following the signature and certificate of service, the appellant's petition shall contain an addendum which shall include true and legible photocopies of the order, judgment, decree, ruling, or letter opinion from which the appeal is taken, a copy of the notice of appeal, and any other relevant pleadings, documents, or exhibits essential to an understanding of the case[.]
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(e)(2)(E) (emphasis added). Further, Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-
2(a)(8)(A)(i) provides that all notices of appeal must be included in the addendum along
with “any other pleading or document in the record that is essential for the appellate court
to affirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.”
In the instant case, Morgan’s notice of appeal is included in the record but is not
included in the addendum. Further, the last page of the June 21, 2018 permanency-planning
order is missing. Because the rules above require that the addendum include the notice of
appeal and all documents essential for this court to understand the case, counsel must
supplement the addendum with the notice of appeal and the missing page of permanency
planning order.
Rule 4-2 provides that if this court determines that deficiencies or omissions in the
abstract or addendum need to be corrected but complete rebriefing is not needed, then the
court will order appellant to file a supplemental abstract or addendum within seven calendar
1 We note that the table of contents indicates that the notice of appeal should be found on addendum pages 65–67. Our addendum ends at page 63. It appears that the missing pages may have simply been omitted inadvertently when the brief was filed.
2 days to provide the additional materials from the record to the members of the appellate
court. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4). Accordingly, we order counsel to file the supplemental
addendum containing the missing pages within seven calendar days of the date of this
opinion. We encourage counsel to carefully and thoroughly review our rules to ensure that
no additional deficiencies are present. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4).
Supplemental addendum ordered; motion to withdraw denied.
VIRDEN and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.
Thomas Wilson, for appellant.
One brief only.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2020 Ark. App. 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-morgan-v-arkansas-department-of-human-services-and-minor-children-arkctapp-2020.