Carter v. State , 2015 Ark. 259 ( 2015 )

Cite as 2015 Ark. 259
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-14-5
STANLEY CARTER Opinion Delivered June 4, 2015
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2012-658]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE RANDY F.
APPELLEE PHILHOURS, JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED; COUNSEL
REMOVED.
PER CURIAM
A jury in the Crittenden County Circuit Court convicted appellant Stanley Carter of
three counts of rape for which he received one sentence of life in prison and two terms of
fifty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Carter challenges the circuit court’s denial of his
motion to dismiss in which he argued that he was denied the right to a speedy trial. We find
that Carter’s brief is deficient and order rebriefing. As this is the third time that we have
ordered rebriefing, we also remove present counsel, Shaun Hair, for the appointment of new
counsel to represent Carter in this appeal.
Because Carter received a life sentence, Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(i) requires
the abstract to include “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.” This court has twice ordered
Cite as 2015 Ark. 259
rebriefing to require compliance with this rule. First, we did so on the State’s motion in
which it pointed out, among other things, that Carter had failed to abstract “[t]he denial of
Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict as to the three rape charges, and the testimony
needed for an understanding of that adverse ruling.” Second, when the case was submitted
to us, we issued a per curiam again ordering rebriefing because the addendum did not include
the circuit court’s order continuing the case, which is at issue in the appeal. Carter v. State,
2015 Ark. 4 (per curiam). In addition, we noted that “[w]hile counsel has abstracted the
adverse rulings made by the circuit court over the course of trial, they have little meaning
without the context of the evidence that was introduced and the circumstances during which
the adverse rulings occurred.” Id at 2.
The brief currently under consideration is also deficient. First, the circuit court
overruled Carter’s hearsay objection during the testimony of Amanda Taylor. However, the
abstract does not include the witness’s testimony. Obviously, we cannot assess whether
prejudicial error occurred as required by Rule 4-3(i) without knowing the substance of the
testimony that was admitted over Carter’s objection. Second, Carter has wholly failed to
include any of the trial testimony that is pertinent to the adverse rulings denying his motions
for directed verdict, although the State and this court have previously called attention to this
abstracting deficiency. We also find that Carter’s addendum does not include the circuit
court’s order denying Carter’s posttrial “Motion to Supplement the Record and to Renew
Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Speedy Trial.”
Carter’s brief is not in compliance with Rule 4-3(i) after two attempts, and we must
2
Cite as 2015 Ark. 259
order rebriefing. We also deem it necessary to remove counsel, and we request the Arkansas
Public Defender Commission to assign new counsel for substitution and appointment by this
court to represent Carter on appeal.
It is so ordered.
3