Stanton v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Stanton v. State

770 S.W.2d 147, 299 Ark. 54, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 263

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 30, 1989

DocketCR 88-199

StatusPublished

This text of 770 S.W.2d 147 (Stanton 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

Stanton v. State, 770 S.W.2d 147, 299 Ark. 54, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 263 (Ark. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Tóm Glaze, Justice.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant Clifton Stanton was convicted of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to forty (40) years imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction, but he filed a timely Rule 37 petition alleging among other things ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant failed to abstract the court’s order denying his Rule 37 petition, and the state did not provide a supplemental abstract. This court has held that the judgment or decree appealed from is ordinarily an essential component of the abstract. Brown v. State, 298 Ark. 396, 767 S.W.2d 313 (1989); Davis v. Wingfield, 297 Ark. 57, 759 S.W.2d 219 (1988). Because the appellant has failed to abstract the trial court’s order, we affirm pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(e)(1).

Affirmed.

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

Tóm Glaze, Justice.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant Clifton Stanton was convicted of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to forty (40) years imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction, but he filed a timely Rule 37 petition alleging among other things ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant failed to abstract the court’s order denying his Rule 37 petition, and the state did not provide a supplemental abstract. This court has held that the judgment or decree appealed from is ordinarily an essential component of the abstract. Brown v. State, 298 Ark. 396, 767 S.W.2d 313 (1989); Davis v. Wingfield, 297 Ark. 57, 759 S.W.2d 219 (1988). Because the appellant has failed to abstract the trial court’s order, we affirm pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(e)(1).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 S.W.2d 147, 299 Ark. 54, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanton-v-state-ark-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack