688 JONES V. MCCOOL [318 Cite ac 118 Ark.588 (1994) Tyree JONES v. Ms. McCOOL, Records Supervisor, and Charlotte Sumner, Records Supervisor Arkansas Department of Correction 94-353 886 S.W.2d 633 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered November 14, 1994 APPEAL & ERROR — CRITICAL DOCUMENT NC)T ABSTRACTED — COURT COULD NOT CONSIDER ISSUES RAISED. — Where the appellant failed to include an abstract of any part of the record in the appellant's brief, the judgment was affirmed for noncompliance with Supreme Court Rule 4-2 (a)(6) which requires the appellant to abstract that part of the record which is material to the points argued in the appellant's brief; the failure to abstract a critical document precluded the court from considering issues concerning it. 2. APPEAL & ERROR — APPELLANT MOVED TO AMEND BRIEF TO INCLUDE ABSTRACT — MOTION TO AMEND FILED AFTER APPELLEE FILED ITS BRIEF TOO LATE. — Where, nearly a month after the appellee filed its brief, the appellant filed a motion seeking to amend its brief to include an abstract, the motion was denied; once the appellee has filed its brief, it is too late to file a motion to amend the appellant's brief. Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Fred D. Davis, Judge; affirmed. Appellant, pro se. Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Senior Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee. PER CURIAM. The appellant Tyree Jones, who is in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction by virtue of multiple felony convictions, filed a pro se petition for writ of man-damus and declaratory judgment against two persons employed
ARK.] 689 in the Records Office of the Department. The circuit court denied the petition, and appellant brings this appeal. [1, 2] The appellant has failed to include an abstract of any part of the record in the appellant's brief. Our Rule 4-2 (b)(2) provides that a judgment may be affirmed for noncompliance with Rule 4-2 (a)(6) which requires the appellant to abstract that part of the record which is material to the points argued in the appellant's brief. The failure to abstract a critical document precludes this court from considering issues concerning it. Porchia v. State, 306 Ark. 443, 815 S.W.2d 926 (1991). The abstracting requirement applies to those appellants who proceed pro se. Markham v. State, 303 Ark. 438, 798 S.W.2d 58 (1990). Nearly a month after the appellee state filed its brief, appellant filed a motion seeking to amend the brief to include an abstract. The motion is denied. Once the appellee has filed its brief, it is too late to file a motion to amend the appellant's brief. As the abstract in this case is totally deficient, we affirm. Affirmed.
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.