Title: Allen v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Shannon ALLEN v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-628                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 11, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- petition for review -- action taken upon
     granting petition. -- Upon the grant of a petition for review
     following a decision by the court of appeals, the supreme
     court reviews the case as though the appeal was originally
     filed with the supreme court. 

2.   Appeal & error -- record on appeal limited to that which is
     abstracted -- court will examine transcript of trial only in
     order to affirm. -- An abstract must contain those parts of
     the record that are necessary to an understanding of the
     issues presented to the appellate court for decision; the
     record on appeal is limited to that which is abstracted; the
     court will not examine the transcript of a trial to reverse a
     trial court; however, it will do so to affirm. 

3.   Appeal & error -- abstract repeatedly deficient -- transcript
     references throughout the argument no substitute for a proper
     abstract. -- Appellant's abstract was deficient where none of
     the State's case-in-chief nor discussions and objections
     concerning instructions were summarized in the abstract; an
     abstract must include all material necessary to an
     understanding of all questions presented to the appellate
     court for decision; the argument made to the trial court and
     the trial court's ruling are vital to a review of the ruling
     by the appellate court; scattering transcript references
     throughout the argument is not a substitute for a proper
     abstract. 


     Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Tom Smitherman, Judge;
affirmed.
     Daniel D. Becker and Ann C. Hill , for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  J. Brent Standridge, Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     Robert H. Dudley, Justice.
     Shannon Allen was charged with burglary.  His abstract
reflects that, before trial, he submitted proposed jury
instructions to the trial court.  The case went to trial, but 
appellant's abstract does not include a summary of the State's
evidence.  Following the State's case-in-chief, the trial court
reviewed the proposed jury instructions.  The abstract reflects
that the trial court ruled that it would instruct on residential
burglary, but would not instruct on the lesser-included offense of
criminal trespass.  The abstract does not contain a summary of the
ruling, and it does not give the reasons stated by the trial court
for the ruling.  After the hearing on instructions, appellant took
the witness stand.  His testimony is the only testimony summarized
in the abstract.  The abstract does not disclose whether there was
any additional discussion of instructions at the close of the case. 
The abstract reflects only that the trial court instructed the jury
on the offense of residential burglary.  Appellant was convicted of
burglary.
     Appellant appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals and argued
that the trial court erred in refusing to give the lesser-included
instruction of criminal trespass.  The court of appeals reversed
and remanded.  Allen v. State, 53 Ark. App. 225, 920 S.W.2d 860
(1996).  The State filed a petition for review, which this court
granted.  Upon the grant of a petition for review following a
decision by the court of appeals, we review the case as though the
appeal was originally filed with this court.  Armer v. State, 326
Ark. 7, ___ S.W.2d ___ (1996).  Upon such review, we affirm the
judgment of conviction because the abstract is flagrantly
deficient.
     Rule 4-2(a)(6) of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides that
an abstract must contain those parts of the record that are
necessary to an understanding of the issues presented to the
appellate court for decision.  We have often written that the
record on appeal is limited to that which is abstracted.  Taylor v.
State, 299 Ark. 123,