Wright v. City of Bearden
2017 Ark. App. 361
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Rayford Wright (pro se) was found in violation of City of Bearden Ordinance No. 115 and fined $970 plus $25 court costs by the Ouachita County Circuit Court.
- Wright appealed pro se, arguing the ordinance is unconstitutional.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed Wright’s appellate brief and found multiple deficiencies in form and citation.
- Specific defects: disorganized statement of the case; improper case citations (not in required official-report format and missing style/year/parallel citations); references to the record rather than to the abstract.
- The court emphasized that pro se appellants are held to the same briefing standards as attorneys and ordered Wright to file a substituted compliant brief within 15 days, warning that failure to comply could result in affirmance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ordinance No. 115 is unconstitutional | Wright argued the ordinance will not withstand constitutional law | City defended the conviction and enforcement of the ordinance | Court did not reach merits due to briefing deficiencies; ordered rebriefing |
| Whether Wright’s brief complied with Rule 4-2(a)(6) (statement of the case) | Wright’s brief presented his case facts and arguments | City implicitly relied on appellate rules and proper briefing | Court held statement was confusing and noncompliant; ordered substitute brief |
| Whether Wright’s case citations complied with Rule 4-2(a)(7) and Rule 5-2(d) | Wright relied on case citations like "107 Ark 174" and "85 Ark 509" | City relied on requirement for official-report and uniform citations | Court held citations noncompliant (missing style, year, parallel citations); required correction |
| Whether references to the record satisfied requirement to cite the abstract | Wright cited the record directly in argument | Appellee and court required references to the abstract with page citations | Court held citation to the record improper; required citation to abstract pages in substituted brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Byers, 368 Ark. 516 (2007) (pro se appellants are held to the same standards in preparing briefs as attorneys)