Title: Larry D. Brothers v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM APRIL 11, 2002 LARRY D. BROTHERS APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE CR 02-36 AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, NO. CR-2000-165 & CR-2000-166 HONORABLE HAROLD S. ERWIN, CIRCUIT JUDGE AFFIRMED Appellant, Larry D. Brothers, filed a Rule 37 petition following his guilty plea. The circuit court denied appellant's petition without a hearing. Subsequently, appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his petition. We are unable to address the merits of appellant's appeal, because he has failed to include an argument section in his brief.1 Pursuant to Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 4-2 (a)(7), arguments shall be presented under subheadings numbered to correspond to the outline of the points relied upon. Without the argument section of the brief we are unable to ascertain the basis for appellant's allegations of error. Our appellate courts have consistently affirmed a trial court's order where an appellant has failed to cite any authority or make a convincing argument, and where it is not apparent without further research that the argument is well taken. See Henderson v. State, 337 Ark. 518, 990 S.W.2d 530 (1999); Matthews v. State, 327 Ark. 70, 938 S.W.2d 545 (1997). Pro se litigants are held to the same briefing requirements as attorneys. See Jewell v. Arkansas State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 324 Ark. 463, 921 S.W.2d 950 (1996). Here, appellant has failed to submit any arguments challenging the circuit court's decision. Without any assertion of error, we affirm. Affirmed. 1 Because of recent modifications to our Rules, cases in which the record is lodged in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals on or after September 1, 2001, will no longer be affirmed because of the insufficiency of the abstract without the appellant first having the opportunity to cure the deficiencies. See In re: Modification of the Abstracting System -- Amendments to Supreme Court Rules 2-3, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, Ark. Appx. __, __ S.W.3d __ (2001) (per curiam). However, in this case appellant's abstract is not deficient and the recent changes in our Rules are not applicable to appellant's brief.