ARK] 445 James Lee JACKSON v. STATE of Arkansas CR 04-854 206 S.W3d 889 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered April 14, 2005 APPEAL & ERROR - MOTION TO DIRECT COMPLIANCE WITH ARK: SUP: CT_ R. 4-3(h) — MOTION DENIED: - Appellant's fifteen-page abstract was complete in some respects, but was not adequate to represent the five-volume, almost 400-page record to permit the supreme court to review his life sentence under Rule 4-3(h); given the fact that appellant did not respond to this motion, and given the extensive delays that have already occurred in this case due to numerous extensions and problems occasioned by appellant's attorney, the State's motion to direct appellant's attorney to comply with Ark: Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h) was denied and the court directed the State to file a supplemental abstract in compliance with Rule 4-3(h); this directive was consistent with the State's burden under Rule 4-3(h) to "make certain and certify that all of those objections have been abstracted[1" Motion to Direct Compliance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h); denied: No response. Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen , by: Misty Wilson Borkowski, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee. ER CURIAlvl_ The State has filed this motion to direct P appellant's attorney, William M. Howard, Jr., to comply with Ark_ Sup_ Ct_ R, 4-3(h), claiming that the State cannot certify that appellant's abstract complies with the rule. While appellant's fifteen-page abstract is complete in some respects, it is not adequate to represent the five-volume, almost 400-page record to permit this court to review his life sentence under Rule 4-3(h). [1] Given the fact that appellant did not respond to this motion, and given the extensive delays that have already occurred in this case due to numerous extensions and problems occasioned by appellant's attorney, see, e.g., Jackson v. State, 361 Ark. 287, 206 S.W.3d 246 (2005); McGehee v. State, 327 Ark: 88, 937 S.W.2d 632 (1997), we deny the State's motion and direct the State to file a
JACKSON V_ STATE 446 Cite as 361 Ark 445 (2005) [361 supplemental abstract in compliance with Rule 4-3(h). Our direct tt ive is consistent with the State's burden under Rule 4-3(h) to make certain and certify that all of those objections have been abstractedH" Because Mr. William M. Howard, attorney for Mr Jackson, has again failed to file an adequate abstract and brief, a copy of this per curiam will be sent to the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct and to the Special Master, Judge Jack Less-enberry, who has previously been appointed to conduct a hearing in this case.
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.