Title: Michael J. Fegans v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction et al.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 MICHAEL J. FEGANS Appellant v. LARRY NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Dept. of Correction; CHARLOTTE SUMNER, Records Supervisor; GEORGE BREWER, Classification Supervisor; and MELBA WOODARD, Records Supervisor. Appellees 99-161 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY, (NO. LCIV 97-70-3) HONORABLE FRED D. DAVIS III, JUDGE AFFIRMED In 1991, Michael Fegans pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, second degree battery, and criminal attempt to commit first degree escape. His aggregate sentence in the Arkansas Department of Correction is eighteen years. At the time of Fegans's conviction, inmates in the Department of Correction could earn "good time" credits that could be applied toward the reduction of their sentences. One form of good time credit was awarded automatically by the Department to prisoners who were classified into one of four categories. The other form of good time credit was discretionary meritorious good time, or "extra good time," which could be awarded if a prisoner, among other things, completed rehabilitative programs or performed special jobs. In 1993, however, the General Assembly passed Acts 536 and 558. Both of these acts, which became effective on January 1, 1994, repealed "extra good time." On July 8, 1997, Fegans filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a petition for declaratory judgment in the circuit court of Lincoln County. The pleadings apparently challenged Act 536 and Act 558 as ex post facto legislation. The circuit court denied relief, and Fegans now appeals from that order. We must summarily affirm because Fegans has failed to provide a sufficient abstract. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) provides that the appellant's abstract of the record "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." Fegans has failed to provide us with an adequate abstract of his petition for a writ of mandamus and his petition for a declaratory judgement. While the abstract contains the headings, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT," and "PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT," what follows does not appear to be a summary of the contents of Fegans's filing in the circuit court. Rather, the text that follows appears to be reproduced from court opinions that discuss the Ex Post Facto Clause. We are unable to discern how these opinions were cited or used in Fegans's petitions, nor can we tell if the arguments raised on appeal match those that were raised in the petition. Consequently, we must summarily affirm. We note that after the filing of the briefs in this appeal, Fegans filed a Motion to Cite Authorities Outside the Record and to Expedite the Proceeding and Incorporated Brief. He did not, however, seek to file a substituted brief in order to cure the abstracting flaw that bars ourconsideration of the merits of his appeal. Accordingly, his motion is moot and the decision of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed.