ARK.] 475 Charles E. PENNINGTON v. A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction 88-227 763 S.W.2d 78 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered January 17, 1989 1. APPEAL & ERROR — PRO SE LITIGANTS HELD TO ABSTRACTING REQUIREMENT. — Pro se litigants are held to the abstracting requirement of Rule 9 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. 2. APPEAL & ERROR — CASE AFFIRMED WHERE NONE OF THE RECORD WAS ABSTRACTED AND CRITICAL COURT ORDERS WERE NOT PROVIDED. — Where appellant not only wholly ignored the abstracting requirement, but also failed to provide the appellate court with a record that contained the court orders necessary to determine the parole eligibility issue the appellant raised on appeal, the appellate court affirmed pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(e)(2). Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Berlin C. Jones, Judge; affirmed. Appellant, pro se. Steve Clark, Att'y Gen., by: Jack Gillean, Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee. TOM GLAZE, Justice. Appellant brings this pro se appeal from the trial court's denial of appellant's petition for declaratory judgment requesting that his parole eligibility be correctly determined.' He has failed to abstract any of the record. In addition, the three courts' sentencing orders needed to determine parole eligibility are omitted . from the transcript. [1, 2] We hold pro se litigants to the abstracting requirement of Rule 9 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Bryant v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 302,705 S.W.2d 9 (1986); Walkerv. . State, 283 Ark. 339,676 S.W.2d 460 (1984). In the present case, appellant not only wholly ignored this court's abstracting requirement, but also he failed to privilege us with a ' In an earlier appeal, this court denied post-conviction relief to appellant. Pen-nington v. State, 294 Ark. 185, 741 S.W.2d 266 (1987).
mmimm■■ record that contains the court orders necessary to determine the parole eligibility issue the appellant raises in this appeal. Accordingly, we are required to affirm pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(e)(2).
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.