Terrell Deshawn Thomas v. State of Arkansas

2019 Ark. App. 479

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: October 23, 2019
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2019 Ark. App. 479 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Digitally signed by Elizabeth Perry Date: 2022.08.04 12:09:02 -05'00' DIVISION I Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.001.20169 No. CR-19-67

Opinion Delivered: October 23, 2019 TERRELL DESHAWN THOMAS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 26CR-16-567] V. HONORABLE MARCIA R. HEARNSBERGER, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

Appellant Terrell Thomas was charged with one count of aggravated robbery.

Thomas ultimately pled guilty to the charge and opted to be sentenced by a jury. After a

hearing, a Garland County jury sentenced Thomas to twenty-five years in the Arkansas

Department of Correction. On appeal, Thomas’s sole argument is that the circuit court

abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce evidence of two other aggravated

robberies with which he had been charged but not yet convicted of. We are unable to

address the merits of Thomas’s argument at this time, however, due to deficiencies in

Thomas’s abstract.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) provides that an appellant shall create an

abstract of the material parts of all the transcripts in the record. Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) specifically

states that the “abstract must not reproduce the transcript verbatim” and that “[i]n abstracting testimony, the first person (“I”) rather than the third person (“He or She”) shall be used.

The question-and-answer format shall not be used.” Thomas’s abstract is a verbatim

reproduction of the transcript and is submitted entirely in question-and-answer format. 1

This is expressly forbidden by Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B). See Genz v. Carter-Cooksey, 2019 Ark.

App. 339, at 2; Williams v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 663, at 2.

We therefore order rebriefing and direct Thomas to file a substituted brief that cures

these deficiencies within fifteen days pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(3). After service of the

substituted brief, the State shall have the opportunity to revise or supplement its brief, or

the State may choose to rely on the brief previously filed in this appeal. While we have

noted the above-described deficiencies, we strongly encourage counsel to review our rules

to ensure that no other deficiencies are present.

Rebriefing ordered.

GRUBER, C.J., and VAUGHT, J., agree.

T. Clay Janske, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

1 We also note that Thomas has entirely failed to abstract portions of his sentencing hearing. The State, however, has submitted a supplemental abstract that provides the testimony omitted in Thomas’s brief.