Roderick Shoulders v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 125

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: February 19, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 125 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Date: 2021-06-30 14:59:21 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION IV 9.7.5 No. CR-19-599

Opinion Delivered: February 19, 2020 RODERICK SHOULDERS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 30CR-18-72] V. HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

Appellant Roderick Shoulders appeals the order of the Hot Spring County Circuit

Court denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. Due to deficiencies

in his brief, however, we must order a supplemental addendum at this time.

Shoulders was charged with trafficking a controlled substance after an Arkansas State

Trooper found more than 200 grams of methamphetamine in the trunk of Shoulders’s rental

car during a traffic stop. Prior to trial, Shoulders moved to suppress the evidence seized as a

result of that stop, arguing that he did not consent to the trooper’s search of his vehicle. The

circuit court held a hearing on the suppression motion and denied it, finding that the trooper

obtained Shoulders’s consent to search. The matter then proceeded to a jury trial, and a Hot

Spring County jury convicted Shoulders of one count of trafficking a controlled substance

and sentenced him to forty years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Shoulders filed a timely notice of appeal and now argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion

to suppress the evidence seized from his car.

We decline to reach the merits of Shoulders’s arguments at this time and order him

to provide a supplemental addendum. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) (2019)

requires that the addendum must include “any other pleading or document in the record

that is essential for the appellate court to . . . understand the case, and to decide the issues

on appeal.” This rule expressly contemplates exhibits such as DVDs. Id. Here, the issue on

appeal is whether the circuit court erred when it found that Shoulders consented to the

trooper’s search of his vehicle. During the suppression hearing, the State introduced a DVD

containing a recording of the trooper’s dashcam video of the traffic stop, during which the

trooper asked for Shoulders’s consent. Shoulders argues on appeal that he did not consent

to the search, and the State counters that he did. The exchange between the trooper and

Shoulders is thus critical to our understanding of the case. Shoulders, however, did not

include a physical copy of the DVD in his addendum. 1 Rather, the addendum contains a

photocopy of a photograph of the DVD.

In several recent cases, we have ordered appellants to submit a supplemental

addendum that includes a physical copy of the DVD. See, e.g., Watts v. State, 2020 Ark.

App. 102; Cagle v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 623; Danner v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 447; Caldwell

v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 393, 557 S.W.3d 268. Consistent with these opinions, we order

1 Shoulders’s brief does provide an abstract of the conversation on the dashcam video.

2 Shoulders to file a supplemental addendum containing the missing DVD within seven

calendar days from the date of this opinion.

Supplemental addendum ordered.

HIXSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Ogles Law Firm, P.A., by: John Ogles, for appellant.

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