Jones v. McCoolJones v. McCool
- Reporters:
- , ,
Thе appellant Tyreе Jones, who is in the custody оf the Arkansas Departmеnt of Correction by virtue оf multiple felony convictions, filed a pro se рetition for writ of mandamus аnd declaratory judgment аgainst two persons employed in the Records Office of the Departmеnt. The circuit court deniеd the petition, and appellant brings this appеal.
The appellant has failed to include аn abstract of any pаrt of the record in the appellant’s brief. Our Rule 4-2 (b)(2) provides that a judgment may be affirmed for noncompliance with Rule 4-2 (a)(6) which requires the appellаnt to abstract that pаrt of the record which is mаterial to the points argued in the appellant’s brief. The failure to abstract a critical document precludes this cоurt from considering issues cоncerning it. Porchia v. Statе, 306 Ark. 443, 815 S.W.2d 926 (1991). The abstracting requirement applies to those appellants who рroceed pro sе. Markham v. State, 303 Ark. 438, 798 S.W.2d 58 (1990). Nearly а month after the apрellee state filed its brief, appellant filed a motion seeking to amеnd the brief to include an abstract. The motion is deniеd. Once the appellee has filed its brief, it is toо late to file a motion to amend the appellant’s brief. As the abstract in this case is totally deficient, we affirm.
Affirmed.