Opinion ID: 2354394
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Insufficient and Incomplete Record

Text: Scott argues first that he is entitled to Rule 37 relief due to a failure to create and provide this court with a complete record sufficient to allow a meaningful review. Scott cites Ward v. State, 321 Ark. 659, 660, 906 S.W.2d 685 (1995), where this court stated, If a record of trial is insufficient to permit a full review of the proceedings from which an appeal has been taken, we have no alternative but to reverse and order a new trial. Scott also cites Jacobs v. State, 327 Ark. 498, 503, 939 S.W.2d 824 (1997), where we stated that in a case involving a sentence of life without parole, [o]ur rules require us to examine the record for all errors prejudicial to the defendant.... We note that in Ward , that there were numerous errors in the transcript, misidentified speakers, bench conferences that were not reported, and an unsuccessful attempt to settle the record. In Jacobs , the court reporter's tapes and records were vandalized and made useless. Also in Jacobs , an attempt was made to reconstruct or settle the record under Ark. R.App. P.-Civ. 6; however, the attempt was unsuccessful. Thus, in both Ward and Jacobs , significant and critical portions of the record were missing. McGehee v. State, 328 Ark. 404, 943 S.W.2d 585 (1997), is also relevant. In McGehee, the court reporter's tapes were missing. Transcripts of bench conferences and trial testimony were not in the record. Testimony was attributed to the wrong witnesses. The accuracy of transcriptions were disputed by counsel, and there were other errors. The prosecution agreed that the court reporter should not have certified the transcript. Again, in McGehee, there was an unsuccessful attempt to reconstruct the record. In McGehee, we stated: In Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Drew, 276 Ark. 390, 635 S.W.2d 252 (1982), we held that where there is virtually no record of the proceedings conducted out of the presence of the jury and where the record is inadequate for appellate review, the appellate court can do nothing other than remand for a new trial. McGehee, 328 Ark. at 413, 943 S.W.2d 585. The responsibility of keeping a complete record lies with the trial court. Bell v. State, 296 Ark. 458, 757 S.W.2d 937 (1988). We recently stated that while we agree that there is a preference for a complete record, a full and complete record is not necessarily required where the existing record is sufficient for us to perform a review for errors prejudicial to the rights of the appellant. Lewis v. State, 354 Ark. 359, 123 S.W.3d 891 (2003); Ark.Code Ann. § 16-91-113(a)(1987); Ark. S.Ct. R. 4-3(h) (2003). The notice of appeal filed by Scott on March 18, 1998, requested transcription of the entire record, including all pretrial hearings, in chambers proceedings, jury selection, testimony and exhibits, and every and all other matters presented in the trial of this matter. We note that in Howell v. State, 350 Ark. 47, 84 S.W.3d 442 (2002) the appellant requested the entire record but the record provided did not include voir dire and jury selection. In Howell , we stated: In addition, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h)(2002), when the sentence is death or life imprisonment, the Court must review all errors prejudicial to the appellant in accordance with Ark.Code Ann. § 16-91-113(a) ... Although the Attorney General made such certification in this case, a complete review is impossible to make without a true and complete transcript of the record. Howell, 350 Ark. at 48, 84 S.W.3d 442. There is no question that prejudicial errors may occur during jury selection and voir dire. Therefore, this court had to review that portion of the record. In the present case, Scott complains that this court was deprived of the opportunity to review hearings on arraignment, bond for release, a September 13, 1996 hearing, an ex parte hearing on February 28, 1997, and an additional unidentified ex parte hearing. We first consider Scott's arguments regarding arraignment. Scott is correct that the docket does not reflect that a formal arraignment took place. Citing Neal v. State, 270 Ark. 442, 605 S.W.2d 421 (1980), Scott argues that in failing to assure that the arraignment hearing took place, counsel deprived Scott of the critical due process requirement of arraignment, and that thereby the judgment is rendered void and open to collateral attack in a Rule 37 proceeding. The lack of a record of arraignment is not discussed in Neal. Neal does stand for the proposition that a Rule 37 petition may raise questions that might have been raised on direct appeal where they are so fundamental as to render the judgment void and open to collateral attack. Neal, 270 Ark. at 447, 605 S.W.2d 421. Rule 37 is a narrow remedy designed to prevent wrongful incarceration under a sentence so flawed as to be void. Nooner v. State, 339 Ark. 253, 4 S.W.3d 497 (1999). Scott has not showed that he was prejudiced in any way by a lack of a record on arraignment. From the record it is not possible to determine whether a formal arraignment took place. Arraignment is the reading of the indictment to the criminal defendant and asking for a plea of guilty or not guilty to the charge. Nance v. State, 323 Ark. 583, 602, 918 S.W.2d 114 (1996); Ark.Code Ann. § 16-91-113(a)(1987). Scott appears to be arguing that his due process rights were violated by a lack of a prompt first appearance in an arraignment hearing. In Arkansas, a criminal defendant's right to a prompt first appearance and determination of whether he or she may be restrained in custody is handled by a probable cause hearing. Nance, supra ; Ark. R.Crim. P. 8.1 (2003). Further, where a criminal defendant is tried on a plea of not guilty without objection, the right created under the statutes to arraignment is waived. Ellingburg v. State, 254 Ark. 199, 492 S.W.2d 904 (1973); Hill v. State, 251 Ark. 370, 472 S.W.2d 722 (1971); Clubb v. State, 230 Ark. 688, 326 S.W.2d 816 (1959). The issue of arraignment is moot. We next consider Scott's argument regarding the failure to assure that the bond hearings were recorded and included in the record. Scott was convicted, and his conviction was affirmed. Therefore, any issues arising from errors relating to pretrial release and bond are moot. Davis v. State, 350 Ark. 22, 86 S.W.3d 872 (2002); Shields v. State, 348 Ark. 7, 70 S.W.3d 392 (2002). This court does not decide moot issues. See K.S. v. State, 343 Ark. 59, 31 S.W.3d 849 (2000). Next we consider the September 13, 1996, docket entry. Scott asserts that this docket entry refers to a hearing that was not reported. We also note that Scott asserts error in failing to assure his presence at the September 13, 1996 hearing. According to the trial court, the notation in the docket on September 13, 1996 to a continuance is not a reference to a hearing, but rather is a ministerial notation in the docket that the case was continued. The trial court stated that there was no hearing on September 13, 1996 to be recorded. Thus, there is no merit to this issue. We now consider Scott's argument of error in holding ex parte hearings that were neither attended by his counsel nor recorded. On this issue, Scott refers this court to page 90 in the record where we find argument by Scott's counsel: The docket reflects that on February 28th of '97, it appears that Judge Yates, without a hearing or without my being present or my client, signed in the docket that the case was continued pending a mental exam. Well, the problem with that, is that your honor clearly indicated that the order should be sent immediately to the hospital, that Mr. Scott should be examined immediately within that 30 day period, but he was not. The docket for February 28, 1997, states, Cont. pending mental exam. The docket on January 21, 1997, correctly records that on that date Scott moved for and was granted a mental examination. Once a mental exam is ordered, the case is continued. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-305(a)(1)(Supp.2003); Ark. R.Crim. P. 28.3(a) (2003). The notation on the docket on February 28, 1997, merely notes this. Scott makes no argument that anything occurred on February 28, 1997, other than a notation that the case was continued, which it was. There is no merit to this claim. Scott makes no specific argument regarding the other unidentified ex parte hearing he alleges took place. There is nothing for this court to consider. Scott must show that he suffered prejudice. Scott fails to develop the argument, therefore; the issue will not be considered. Weatherford v. State, 352 Ark. 324, 101 S.W.3d 227 (2003). Finally, we consider the assertion by Scott that at the March 25, 1996, hearing it was determined that crucial paperwork was missing from the court's file and that charges may not have been filed against the Appellant. The record and docket reflect that the criminal information was filed on March 7, 1996. There is no merit to this claim.