Case Name: Ray DANSBY v. STATE of Arkansas
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 2002-01-31
Citations: 347 Ark. 509
Docket Number: CR 00-1218
Parties: Ray DANSBY v. STATE of Arkansas
Judges: IMBER, J., not participating.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 347
Pages: 509–512

Head Matter:
Ray DANSBY v. STATE of Arkansas
CR 00-1218
65 S.W.3d 448
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered January 31, 2002
David W. Talley, Jr., for appellant.
Mark Pryor, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
P ER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by appellant Ray Dansby from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5 in connection with his capital murder convictions and death sentences. Dansby raises multiple issues in his Rule 37.5 appeal, including (1) trial counsel was ineffective in pretrial preparation; (2) trial counsel was ineffective in conducting voir dire of the jury panel; (3) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to secure the presence of a witness, Calvin Paschal; (4) trial counsel was ineffective in falling to move to suppress Dansby's statement given to law enforcement; and (5) trial counsel was ineffective in preparing mitigation evidence for the penalty phase of the trial. Counsel for Dansby in this Rule 37.5 appeal has failed to abstract the testimony and rulings from the underlying trial which give rise to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we order counsel to refile his brief within thirty days in compliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5).
Just last year, this court advised appellant's counsel in a Rule 37.5 death case to correct a flagrantly deficient abstract. See McGehee v. State, 344 Ark. 602, 43 S.W.3d 125 (2001). In McGehee, we referred to our "heightened standard of review in death cases." McGehee, 344 Ark. at 604, 43 S.W.3d at 127. We further referred to our longstanding doctrine that we would not go to the record to reverse a trial court and concluded that an affirmance of the trial court because of an abstract deficiency in this death case would be too harsh.
A proper abstract, which includes material portions of the underlying trial, is essential to this court's review of Rule 37.5 decisions. Without it, we are unable to perform a comprehensive review of Dansby's claim for postconviction relief. When this court adopted Rule 37.5 in 1997, we noted that we were doing so in response to Act 925 of 1997 and the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Later, we noted the purpose behind Rule 37.5:
Rule 37.5 evolved from Act 925 of 1997, now codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-201 to -206 (Supp. 1999), where the General Assembly expressly noted that the intent of the Act is to comply with federal law by instituting a comprehensive state-court review. See section 16-91-204; Porter v. State, 332 Ark. 186, 964 S.W.2d 184 (1998) (per curiam). The purpose of a meaningful state review is to eliminate the need for multiple federal habeas corpus proceedings in death cases. Id. Thus, "in death cases where a Rule 37 petition is denied on procedural grounds, great care should be exercised to assure that the denial rests on solid footing." Id. at 188-89, 964 S.W2d at 185.
Echols v. State, 344 Ark. 513, 517, 42 S.W.3d 467, 469 (2001) (quoting Wooten v. State, 338 Ark. 691, 695-96, 1 S.W.3d 8, 10-11 (1999) (emphasis added)).
The State suggests that this court should go to the record of the underlying trial and read those portions of the trial that pertain to Dansby's claims on appeal. In other words, the State suggests that this court should do appellate counsel's work and engage in the cumbersome process of passing a record back and forth among seven judges in an attempt to find the relevant portions of the record. We decline to do that. Proper abstracting of the record was the obligation of Dansby's attorney.
Dansby's counsel, accordingly, is given thirty days to revise the abstract and submit to this court a substitute brief so that we can engage in a meaningful review of his issues on appeal. The argument section of the brief should remain the same as that currendy included in the brief before this court. Because the argument portion of the appellant's brief will be unchanged, a response by the State should be unnecessary, unless the State objects in some way to the compilation of the revised abstract.
Rebriefing ordered.
IMBER, J., not participating.
Glaze, J., dissents.
By per curiam order, previous Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) became Rule 4-2(a)(5). See In Re: Modification of the Abstracting System - Amendments to Supreme Court Rules 2-3, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4, 345 Ark, Appx. (May 31, 2001).