Cite as 2010 Ark. 333 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR10-225 Opinion Delivered September 16, 2010 JUAN ESTRADA APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI APPELLANT, COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CR-2008-4022, VS. HON. HERBERT WRIGHT, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE, REBRIEFING ORDERED PER CURIAM In October 2009, appellant was convicted of rape and sexual abuse in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten years’ imprisonment, respectively, to run concurrently. After a motion for new trial was denied, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this court, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and (2) the circuit court had erred in denying his motion for a new trial. We are unable to consider appellant’s appeal at this time, however, because his brief is not in compliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8) (2010). Our newly-amended rule states that in any case where there was a jury trial, the jury’s verdict forms must be included in the addendum. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i). Our rules also require that “if an exhibit or other item in the record cannot be reproduced in the addendum, then the party making the addendum must file a motion seeking a waiver of the addendum obligation.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(ii).
Cite as 2010 Ark. 333 In this case, appellant failed to include the jury verdict forms in his addendum as required by our rules, nor has appellant filed a motion for waiver of this addendum obligation. Accordingly, we order appellant to file a substituted brief, curing the deficiencies in the addendum, within fifteen days from the date of entry of this order. After service of the substituted brief, the appellee shall have the opportunity to file a responsive brief in the time prescribed by the supreme court clerk, or appellee may choose to rely on the brief previously filed in this appeal. While we have noted the above-mentioned deficiency, we encourage appellant’s counsel to review Rules 4-2 and 4-3 and the entire record to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present, as any subsequent rebriefing order in this criminal matter may result in referral to our Committee on Professional Conduct. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 375 Ark. 421, 291 S.W.3d 188 (2009) (per curiam). Rebriefing ordered. -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.