Billy OWENS v. STATE of Arkansas CR 95-1187 924 S.W2d 459 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered June 17, 1996 1. APPEAL & ERROR - PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED WHERE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ABSTRACT. - Appellant's petition for rehearing was denied where he failed in his responsibility to provide an abstract of the record such that the appellate court could determine without examining the record that his A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37 petition was timely. 2. APPEAL & ERROR - APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT EXPLORE RECORD FOR PREJUDICIAL ERROR. - The record on appeal is confined to that which is properly abstracted because it is not feasible for each of the seven justices of the supreme court to examine the record; when an abstract is deficient, the lower court's judgment or order must be affirmed; the appellate court will not explore the record for prejudicial error. Petition for Rehearing (Pulaski Circuit Court; John Langston, Judge); denied. Craig Lambert, for appellant. No response. PER CURIAM. Appellant Billy Owens filed a petition in the trial court pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37, challenging his convictions on four counts of delivery of a controlled substance. The petition was denied, and appellant appealed to this court. We affirmed the order of the trial court on the ground that the petition filed in the trial court was not timely. Owens v. State, CR 95-1187 (May 28, 1996). In determining the timeliness of the petition, we relied on the abstract of the record in the appellant's brief. Appellant Billy Owens now seeks a rehearing on the ground that the original Rule 37 petition was timely. He states that the original petition was not included in the abstract in the appellant's brief because the original petition, which was pro se, was "cleaned up by the filing of amended petitions and the oral amendments that were made in open court!'
94 [325 [1, 2] The petition for rehearing is denied. It was the responsibility of the appellant to provide an abstract of the record such that this court could determine without examining the record that the Rule 37 petition was timely. We have said repeatedly that the record on appeal is confined to that which is properly abstracted because it is not feasible for the seven justices of this court to each examine the record. Pogue v. State, 316 Ark. 428, 872 S.W2d 387 (1994); Brown v. State, 316 Ark. 724, 875 S.W2d 828 (1984); Porchia v. State, 306 Ark. 443, 815 S.W2d 926 (1991). When an abstract is deficient, the lower court's judgment or order must be affirmed. See Fruit v. State, 304 Ark. 457, 802 S.W2d 930 (1991). We will not explore the record for prejudicial error. Pogue v. State, 316 Ark. 428, 872 S.W2d 387; Watson v. State, 313 Ark. 304, 854 S.W2d 332 (1993); Bowers v. State, 292 Ark. 249, 729 S.W2d 170 (1987). Petition denied. BROWN, J., would grant. DUDLEY, j., not participating.
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.