Thomas Hartman v. State of Arkansas, Sex Offender Assessment Committee

2021 Ark. App. 150

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: April 7, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 150 Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS I attest to the accuracy and DIVISION II integrity of this document No. CV-20-365 2023.06.26 12:54:04 -05'00' 2023.001.20174 Opinion Delivered: April 7, 2021 THOMAS HARTMAN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION STATE OF ARKANSAS, SEX [NO. 60CV-19-5652] OFFENDER ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE APPELLEE HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS FOX, JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

Thomas Hartman brings this appeal pursuant to the Arkansas Administrative

Procedure Act (APA). 1 Hartman registered as a sex offender in Wisconsin after being

convicted of second-degree sexual assault of a child in 1997. He moved to Arkansas in 2018

and registered with the Sex Offender Community Notification Assessment (SOCNA). The

SOCNA assigned him a Level 3 community notification, which was affirmed by the Sex

Offender Assessment Committee (SOAC) after Hartman requested an administrative

review. Hartman appealed to the Pulaski County Circuit Court, which affirmed. He appeals

to us, arguing that SOAC’s decision to assign him a Level 3 community notification is not

supported by substantial evidence; is arbitrary and capricious; and constitutes an abuse of

1 The APA is codified at Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 25-15-201 to -218 (Repl. 2014 & Supp. 2019). discretion. We do not address the merits of Hartman’s arguments because of deficiencies in

his addendum, and we order rebriefing.

Our review of administrative-agency decisions is directed not to the decision of the

circuit court but to the decision of the agency because administrative agencies are better

equipped by specialization, insight through experience, and more flexible procedures than

courts to determine and analyze legal issues affecting their agencies. Staton v. Ark. State Bd.

of Collection Agencies, 372 Ark. 387, 390, 277 S.W.3d 190, 192 (2008). When reviewing

administrative decisions, we review the entire record to determine whether any substantial

evidence supports the agency’s decision. Halstead v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm., 2013

Ark. App. 445, at 3. We uphold the decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and

is not arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires the appellant’s brief 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. The rule

specifically includes DVDs. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) (2020).

Hartman challenges the evidence supporting the Level 3 assessment. The addendum

must include the evidence in the record that formed the basis for that assessment, as it is

essential for this court to understand the case and decide the issues on appeal. As part of the

assessment process, the SOCNA interviewed Hartman on April 24, 2018. Hartman’s

assessment level was based, in part, on that interview, which was recorded on a DVD. The

SOCNA also considered Hartman’s police investigative file and other documents from the

Wisconsin conviction in addition to disciplinary records from the Wisconsin Department

2 of Correction. Although the DVD and these documents are in the record, they are not

contained in Hartman’s addendum. Appellee cites the DVD numerous times in its

argument, and both parties’ arguments contain citations to the record for documents that

are not in the addendum. These documents should be in the addendum, and all references

should be to the page number of the “addendum at which such material may be found.”

Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(7).

Hartman has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted brief and

addendum that complies with our rules. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). While we have noted

the above-mentioned DVD and specific documents, we encourage counsel to review Rule

4-2 and the entire record to ensure compliance with the rule. After service of the substituted

brief, appellee shall have the opportunity to file a responsive brief in the time prescribed by

the clerk.

Rebriefing ordered.

KLAPPENBACH and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

John Wesley Hall and Samantha J. Carpenter, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Nga Mahfouz, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.