1 

## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV No . CR

- 13

- 204

TRENTON HOLLEY APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered March 1 9 , 2014
APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [ NO. 23CR

- 11

- 448 ]
HONORABLE CHARLES E. CLAWSON, JUDGE
REMANDED TO SETTLE AND SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD; REBRIEFING ORDERED

BRANDON J. HARRISON , Judge Trenton Holley was found guilty by a Faulkner County jury of sexually assaulting
his step daughter in the second degree. He was sentenced by the circuit court to seventeen years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal, Holley argues that the circuit
court erred when it denied his motion to suppress

. And there is an issue about evidence admitted during sentencin g. We cannot decide the merits of Holley’s appeal yet because his brief, and the record, remain deficient despite our pr ior effort to posture this case for a
merits-based decision. Holley v. State , 2013 Ark. App. 668. On the record deficiency, w e need th e transcripts that the court relied on and referenced in its 18 July 2012 suppression order. We also need unredacted audio recordings of the following events: one, the phone call between Holley and his wife that2 Joni Clark recorded; two, the first time the police interviewed Holley; three , we need the second interview/custodial interrogation conducted between Holley and Joni Clark. Holley ’s abstract fail s to include Dusty Holley’s testimony from the pretrial hearing ; and it exclude s material portions of the attorneys’ arguments during the July 6 hearing

. We need this information. In the forthcoming corrected abstract, Holley must include the supplemental record material that we mentioned above. Moving to the addendum, the
forthcomi ng corrected one needs to include unredacted copies of the three audio recordings that we mentioned. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4- 2(a)(8)(A)(i) (2013).
The State’s brief is not without blemish: it cites directly to the record, which is impr oper
. Russell v. Russell , 2012 Ark. App. 647, at 1 (“A p pellee ’[ s] . . . brief refers to testimony by providing the page number of the record where the testimony may be
found. This is in contravention of Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4 -2[.] ”)

. If the State
identifies deficiencies in an appellant’s abstract or addendum, then it should place the information before this court in a manner prescribed by Rule 4-2 if it wants the omitted
information considered ; or the State may simply rely on the mater ial the appellant’s brief provides. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4- 2(a)(7 ) and 4- 2(b)(1)

. The supplemental record must be compiled and filed within fifteen days of this opinion’s date. Holley’s substituted brief, abstract, and addendum are due within fifteen days after the supplemental record has been filed with this court’s clerk. Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4- 2(b)(3)

. The State should then , if it chooses to respond to Holley’s appellant’s brief, file

a compliant appellee’s brief within fifteen days of the filing of Holle y’s second corrected
brief.3 Remanded to settle and supplement the record; rebriefing ordered.
W OOD and W HITEAKER , JJ., agree.

Blagg Law Firm , by: Ralph Blagg and Nicki Nicolo , for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel , Att’y Gen., by: Eileen W. Harrison , Ass’t Att’ y Gen., for appellee.