Joseph Thomas Lacefield v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 243

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: April 15, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 243 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS document DIVISION III Date: 2021-07-06 12:46:29 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: No. CR-19-617 9.7.5 Opinion Delivered: April 15, 2020

JOSEPH THOMAS LACEFIELD APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANT [NOS. 04CR-14-821; 04CR-14-1460; 04CR-15-69] V. HONORABLE ROBIN F. GREEN, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE

APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant Joseph Thomas Lacefield appeals the order of the Benton County Circuit

Court denying his petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Arkansas

Rules of Criminal Procedure (2019). Appellant raises seven points on appeal; however,

because appellant has submitted a brief without a proper abstract, we order rebriefing.

As an initial matter, we recognize that appellant’s appeal stems from the denial of his

petition for postconviction relief. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-7 governs briefs in

postconviction and certain civil appeals in which the appellant is incarcerated and

proceeding pro se. However, because appellant is represented by counsel in this

postconviction appeal, his appellate brief must meet the requirements of Rule 4-2.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) (2019) provides, in pertinent part: The question-and-answer format shall not be used. In the extraordinary situations where a short exchange cannot be converted to a first-person narrative without losing important meaning, however, the abstract may include brief quotations from the transcript.

Here, in direct violation of Rule 4-2, appellant’s entire abstract is in question-and-answer

format.

Due to appellant’s failure to comply with our abstracting rules, we order appellant to

file a substituted brief curing the deficiency within fifteen days from the date this order is

entered.1 After service of the substituted brief, appellee shall have the opportunity to file a

responsive brief in the time prescribed by the clerk, or appellee may choose to rely on the

brief previously filed in this appeal. While we have noted the deficient abstract, we strongly

encourage appellant’s counsel to review our rules to ensure that no additional deficiencies

exist, as any subsequent rebriefing order may result in affirmance of the order or judgment

due to noncompliance with Rule 4-2.2

Rebriefing ordered.

GLADWIN and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.

University of Arkansas School of Law, Law School Legal Clinic, by: Tiffany Murphy, for

appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

1 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). 2 See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3); see also Carter v. Cline, 2011 Ark. 266 (per curiam).