Marshall v. State

2017 Ark. 125

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: April 13, 2017
• Docket: CR-16-63
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2017 Ark. 125

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-16-63

Opinion Delivered: April 13, 2017 KENNETH RAY MARSHALL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE COLUMBIA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 14CR-14-2]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE HAMILTON H. APPELLEE SINGLETON, JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ORDERED; SUBSTITUTED BRIEFING ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

A jury found appellant, Kenneth Ray Marshall, guilty of aggravated residential

burglary and commercial burglary, and he was sentenced as a habitual offender to life

imprisonment for the former and thirty years’ imprisonment for the latter, with the sentences

to run consecutively. Because Marshall received a sentence of life imprisonment, this court

“must review all errors prejudicial to the appellant in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §

16-91-113(a).” Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 4-3(i) (2016). Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(i) further

provides as follows:

To make that review possible, the appellant must abstract, or include in the Addendum, as appropriate, all rulings adverse to him or her made by the circuit court on all objections, motions and requests made by either party, together with such parts of the record as are needed for an understanding of each adverse ruling. The Attorney General will make certain and certify that all of those objections have been abstracted, or included in the Addendum, and will brief all points argued by the appellant and any other points that appear to involve prejudicial error. Cite as 2017 Ark. 125

In reviewing the record, the abstract, and the addendum, we have discovered that

both the docket sheet and the circuit court’s statements at trial indicate that the circuit court

held a hearing on January 14, 2015, regarding a motion for speedy trial and a motion for a

change of venue. According to the docket sheet and the circuit court’s statements, both

motions were denied. Though Marshall designated the entire trial record as the record on

appeal, the record does not contain a transcript of that hearing. Thus, the record on appeal

is incomplete. Without a complete record, this court cannot conduct a meaningful review

of the denial of these two motions, as Rule 4-3(i) requires. Romes v. State, 355 Ark. 497,

139 S.W.3d 519 (2003) (per curiam) (holding that the court could not conduct a meaningful

review of an adverse ruling without a complete record).

Accordingly, we order that a supplemental certified transcript of the hearing be filed

with the clerk of this court within thirty days from the date of this per curiam. Once the

transcript has been filed, we direct the parties to file with this court substituted briefs that

satisfy their respective obligations under Rule 4-3(i), with the clerk of this court to set a

briefing schedule.

Also, despite both Marshall’s obligation under Rule 4-3(i) to abstract or include in

the addendum all rulings adverse to him and the Attorney General’s certification that

Marshall had done so, we note that there are adverse rulings in the current record that were

not abstracted. Accordingly, we further order the parties to reexamine the entire record and

complete their respective duties under Rule 4-3(i).

Supplemental record ordered; substituted briefing ordered.