Gilmer v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Gilmer v. State

824 S.W.2d 343, 308 Ark. 506, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 123

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 2, 1992

DocketCR 91-111

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 824 S.W.2d 343 (Gilmer v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gilmer v. State, 824 S.W.2d 343, 308 Ark. 506, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 123 (Ark. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Donald L. Corbin, Justice.

Appellant Michael Gilmer was convicted by a Crittenden County jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury sentenced appellant to twelve years imprisonment, and the court sentenced appellant to an additional twenty years upon revocation of a previously imposed ten year suspended sentence for appellant’s prior burglary conviction. Appellant argues two points for reversal: 1) that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce appellant’s prior felony convictions; and, 2) that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to twenty years upon revocation of a previously suspended ten year sentence on appellant’s prior burglary conviction.

We do not reach the merits of appellant’s arguments because of his complete failure to abstract the record. Grisso v. State, 297 Ark. 546, 763 S.W.2d 661 (1989); Bryant v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 302, 705 S. W.2d 9 (1986). In the absence of an abstract, we cannot review the circumstances surrounding the introduction of appellant’s prior conviction, nor can we ascertain what evidence was before the trial court at appellant’s revocation hearing. In Bryant, we held that we will not entertain an appeal which completely ignores the abstract requirement. We reiterate that this court cannot continue to operate efficiently if each justice must look at the record to ascertain the facts. Id.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Donald L. Corbin, Justice.

Appellant Michael Gilmer was convicted by a Crittenden County jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury sentenced appellant to twelve years imprisonment, and the court sentenced appellant to an additional twenty years upon revocation of a previously imposed ten year suspended sentence for appellant’s prior burglary conviction. Appellant argues two points for reversal: 1) that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce appellant’s prior felony convictions; and, 2) that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to twenty years upon revocation of a previously suspended ten year sentence on appellant’s prior burglary conviction.

We do not reach the merits of appellant’s arguments because of his complete failure to abstract the record. Grisso v. State, 297 Ark. 546, 763 S.W.2d 661 (1989); Bryant v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 302, 705 S. W.2d 9 (1986). In the absence of an abstract, we cannot review the circumstances surrounding the introduction of appellant’s prior conviction, nor can we ascertain what evidence was before the trial court at appellant’s revocation hearing. In Bryant, we held that we will not entertain an appeal which completely ignores the abstract requirement. We reiterate that this court cannot continue to operate efficiently if each justice must look at the record to ascertain the facts. Id.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 S.W.2d 343, 308 Ark. 506, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmer-v-state-ark-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack