Mardriekus Blakes v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 377

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: September 9, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 377 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Date: 2021-07-08 09:26:43 DIVISION II Foxit PhantomPDF Version: 9.7.5 No. CR-19-964

Opinion Delivered: September 9, 2020 MARDRIEKUS BLAKES APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 18CR-18-952] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE JOHN N. FOGLEMAN, JUDGE

SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED

RITA W. GRUBER, Chief Judge

Appellant Mardriekus Blakes was convicted by a Crittenden County jury of two

counts of attempted first-degree murder and four counts of felony terroristic act for shooting

at two victims as they were leaving a convenience store in a pickup truck. Appellant

challenges only the attempted-murder convictions on appeal. He alleges that the evidence

was insufficient to prove that he purposely attempted to cause the victims’ death. We do

not address the merits of appellant’s arguments because of deficiencies in the addendum, and

we order rebriefing.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) (2019) requires the appellant’s brief to

contain an addendum consisting of all documents in the record that are essential for the

appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, understand the case, and decide the issues on

appeal. Here, appellant’s sole point on appeal is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence based on whether he had the requisite mental intent. He contends that the evidence did not

sufficiently prove that he acted purposely because testimony was introduced that the bullets

were not aimed at the occupants of the vehicle but at the hood. The State introduced into

evidence and played for the jury a DVD surveillance video that captured the shooting, along

with photos of the bullet-riddled pickup truck. Indeed, the prosecutor specifically

mentioned the video in defending against appellant’s motion for directed verdict on this

issue, and the court mentioned the video in denying the motion. Appellant’s addendum

does not contain either the DVD surveillance video or the photos. Because they are essential

for us to understand the case and decide the issue on appeal, we order appellant to submit a

supplemental addendum that includes a copy of the DVD and the photos of the victims’

truck. Appellant shall have seven calendar days to submit the supplemental addendum. Ark.

Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4).

Supplemental addendum ordered.

ABRAMSON and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

Bart Ziegenhorn, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.