Case Title: Mayo v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR95-80-2

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-05-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Troy Lee MAYO v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 95-802                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                  Opinion delivered May 6, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- even constitutional arguments not addressed
     if raised for first time on appeal. -- The supreme court will
     not address even constitutional arguments that are raised for
     the first time on appeal.

2.   Appeal & error -- abstracting requirements -- judgment may be
     affirmed for noncompliance -- abstract was flagrantly
     deficient. -- Pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6), an
     appellant's abstract should consist of an impartial
     condensation of "only such material parts of the pleadings,
     proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters in the record
     as are necessary to an understanding of all questions
     presented to the Court for decision"; in the event the
     appellate court finds an abstract to be "flagrantly
     deficient," Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(2) provides that the
     judgment below may be affirmed for noncompliance with the
     rule; the supreme court found appellant's abstract to be
     flagrantly deficient because it failed to provide the
     documents and materials necessary to an understanding of the
     Batson issue presented.

3.   Appeal & error -- appellant's burden to produce record
     sufficient to demonstrate error -- record on appeal confined
     to that which is abstracted -- record insufficient to
     demonstrate error. -- The supreme court does not presume error
     simply because an appeal is made; it is the appellant's burden
     to produce a record sufficient to demonstrate error, and the
     record on appeal is confined to that which is abstracted; the
     supreme court has repeatedly held that because there are seven
     justices on the court, it is virtually impossible for all
     seven to read the one record filed with the appeal; where
     appellant failed adequately to abstract the record regarding
     the Batson issue raised in his brief, the supreme court held
     that the record was insufficient to demonstrate error and
     affirmed the conviction.


     Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court; Olly Neal, Judge; affirmed.
     Lewellen & Associates, by: Roy C. Lewellen, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Vada Berger, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.Associate Justice Donald L.
Corbin, 5-6-96  *ADVREP3*





TROY LEE MAYO,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,
                    APPELLEE,



CR 95-802



APPEAL FROM THE MONROE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR 93-133,
HON. OLLY NEAL, JUDGE,



AFFIRMED.






     Appellant, Troy Lee Mayo, appeals the order of the Monroe
County Circuit Court sentencing him to forty years imprisonment,
following a jury's verdict of guilty on the charges of rape,
robbery, and first-degree battery.  Jurisdiction of this appeal is
properly in this court pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(2).
     Appellant raises two points for reversal of the judgment and
sentence:  First, that a criminal defendant is not required under
the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution to
follow the ruling of Batson v. Kentucky,